Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions —  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that brief supplementary questions are essential if we are to make progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Leasehold Reform Act

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to reform the Leasehold Reform Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales told the House on 3 December in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower), the Housing Bill will contain proposals whereby valuation disputes arising under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 will be referred in the first instance to local leasehold valuation tribunals.
We are considering other aspects of leasehold reform but are not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that there are more leasehold properties in Wales than in many other parts of Britain? In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Government consider setting up a special inquiry, or a Royal Commission, to look into the whole affair?

Mr. Finsberg: I think it would be wiser if we waited to see what happens when the valuation disputes proceed through the new proposal that we have made. There are, after all, a substantial number

of similar properties outside the Principality.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is the Minister contemplating extending rights under the Leasehold Reform Act to flats? Has he any such proposals? Is he also considering the removal of rateable value limits? Does he realise that the limits can cause considerable hardship?

Mr. Finsberg: I have little to add to the original answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). All I can say is that the Act at present applies only to houses for technical, legal reasons. We want to look at the question of extension to leases of flats in the longer term. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a complex position.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many of my constituents are not covered by the Leasehold Reform Act because they are in Crown Estate property? Will he initiate discussions to see whether they can be brought in some way, if not by legislation?

Mr. Finsberg: That is a different angle from the original question. I shall certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister reconsider the five-year limit on eligibility? Will he say why the Government opposed a formula for enfranchisement?

Mr. Finsberg: I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait in patience a little longer.

County Boundaries

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to provide for minor changes to county boundaries to be made by statutory instrument in cases where there is general local approval of any proposed change.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The Local Government Act 1972 already empowers my right hon. Friend to make orders for changes in local government boundaries in accordance with proposals made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Mr. Chapman: Does that reply include county boundaries? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the irrelevance of some county boundary lines, which run through newly created estates across streets and even through individual properties could, and should, be changed by speedier and simpler methods, especially where there is overwhelming local consent for this to be done? Is he aware that examples exist between the London borough of Barnet and Hertfordshire.

Mr. King: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the power exists at the moment. Where there is general agreement and there are exceptional circumstances, it is open to my right hon. Friend to make an order for this to be done. Fresh legislation is not required.

British Lions (Foreign Tours)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his discussions with the rugby unions of Scotland, England and Wales on proposed tours of South Africa.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): The home rugby unions are fully aware of the Government's stance on proposed tours to and from South Africa as set out in our press statement of 14 September. This was again made clear during my recent informal meeting with the chairman of the tours committee.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not British participation in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games jeopardised?

Mr. Monro: We hope that anyone responsible for staging such a tour is aware of all the possible implications. Rugby is not an Olympic sport. The rugby unions are not affiliated to the British Olympic Association. It is for the International Olympic Committee to decide which countries should participate in the Games.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend state why he has adopted this attitude to proposed tours in South Africa.? Would he not agree that taking tours to South Africa can educate the peole of South Africa and speed up the processes that are already taking place in that country? If he does accept the attitude that he has expressed—I find it

difficult to believe that he really does—how can he agree to the holding of the Olympic Games in one of the most barbaric and totalitarian countries in the world?

Mr. Monro: The Government's position was made clear in our statement of 14 September. We shall discuss possible changes with our Commonwealth colleagues if or when sufficient progress has been made towards the integration of sport in South Africa.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Minister aware that yesterday evening a meeting took place in the House between representatives of the home tours committee of the Rugby Football Union and the sports group of the Parliamentary Labour Party at which it was indicated to us that no decision has yet been taken on the proposed tour? Will the Minister prevail upon the rugby authorities not to undertake the tour, bearing in mind that it is necessary to honour the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Gleneagles agreement?

Mr. Monro: The rugby unions can be in no doubt of the Government's position. It was set out in my September letter and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office press release of 14 September.

Mr. Jessel: Why are the Government involved in the matter at all? What have they to do with sport?

Mr. Monro: The Government are concerned to implement the Commonwealth agreement. We have made our position clear to the rugby unions.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that his strong, sensible, intelligent and civilised stand will be supported by all my right hon. and hon. Friends? Is it not the case that the Olympic Games is the only occasion on which the youth of the world from 146 nations, irrespective of their backgrounds—political, racial or religious—come together freely? Is that not something which we ought to treasure and preserve rather than surrender? Does the Minister also agree that one sport has no right to jeopardise the thousands of hours of dedicated training put in by hundreds of our finest sportsmen and women, and jeopardise their chances of representing themselves and their country at the Olympic Games? Finally—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Show the right hon. Gentleman the red card."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the red card for the right hon. Gentleman. He must know that the same rules apply to Front Bench spokesmen as to Back Benchers. Perhaps he will conclude his question. Let us say that I have shown him a yellow card.

Mr. Howell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, when I was a referee I always took provocation into account.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what I am doing.

Mr. Howell: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister agree that it would be the greatest disservice to the Commonwealth if rugby tours to South Africa ended the Commonwealth Games or turned them once more into whites-only games?

Mr. Monro: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I know that many sporting bodies share his fears about the future. I am sure that the rugby unions will have heard what has been said in the House and will bear it in mind in their decision on any invitation to tour South Africa.

New Towns (Commercial and Industrial Assets)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of the sales of commercial and industrial assets owned by new town development corporations and the New Towns Commission to date.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on developments on the sale of commercial property in new towns.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): In the present financial year industrial and commercial assets worth almost £4 million have so far been sold. The sale of assets worth another £24·5 million has been agreed but not finalised, and other assets valued at about £43 million are on the market.

Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many tenants of industrial properties, particularly small business men, whom his party promised to help, are up in arms against his policy? Does he recognise that small business

men are not permitted to buy individual units when they form part of an estate, but are told that the estate must be sold as one unit? Is he also aware that they are not allowed to buy as sitting tenants, but have to put in a bid, which means that their property may be bought over their heads? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about those problems or recognise that the Government are striking a blow at many small business men who have worked to build up their businesses for many years in my constituency and others like it?

Mr. Heseltine: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the small industrial community. I have ensured that guidelines are available in the disposal programme so that the small business owner gets every reasonable chance, subject to considerations of national financial concern, to buy his own property.

Mr. Newens: The right hon. Gentleman is selling them out.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the new town in my constituency and in other new towns about the policy of selling commercial property? Is he further aware that the profitable enterprises will be snapped up and the remainder will be left to be added to the burden of the public purse? Does he agree that the principles of the private Stevenage Development Authority Bill, which is before the House, are of major importance and worthy of the Government's support?

Mr. Heseltine: The Stevenage Bill is in conflict with Government policy and we shall oppose it on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are determined to widen ownership in this country and our policy is in line with what we were elected to achieve.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my right hon. Friend note that, contrary to the remarks of Labour Members, many of us who represent new towns believe that his proposals are welcome to sitting tenants? Will he give us a categorical assurance that he will make every effort to throw out the Stevenage Bill, which is a weasel designed to transfer resources to district councils?

Mr. Heseltine: Given the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am optimistic about the last part of the question.


I have no doubt that the announcement that we intend to offer for sale properties in new towns has been widely welcomed by those who will now have an opportunity to own their properties direct.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are a number of local authorities that have the best reasons for wanting to purchase some of the assets currently in the ownership of new town development corporations or the New Towns Commission, because without being able to do so, and particularly without being able to gain the freehold on town centres, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to carry out the sort of redevelopment work that they may need to do in future? That is possible in areas that have not been predominantly under the ownership of new towns.

Mr. Heseltine: Different powers are needed for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind and it is our intention to ensure that those reasonable powers are available to local atuhorities.

Mr. Hattersley: What advice has the Secretary of State received from the new town chairmen about the advantages to the community of selling the assets leasehold rather than freehold? How and when does he propose to respond to that advice?

Mr. Heseltine: We have discussed the matter. The arguments for selling leasehold or freehold have been well rehearsed and are known to all hon. Members. The Government's view is that we should sell freehold wherever possible.

Council House Sales

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the public expenditure implications of his policy on the sale of council houses.

Mr. Heseltine: I intend to publish an appraisal of the financial effects of the sale of council houses for the parliamentary consideration of the forthcoming housing Bill.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that over a period of about 20 years the short-term gains from selling council houses could be converted into a loss of about £8,500 per house? Does he

accept that his policy of selling council houses is denying homes to many couples and families in high-rise flats? Does he also agree that, by failing to give similar purchase rights to private tenants, he is busily supporting the principle of private affluence and public squalor?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in the figures, I do not understand why he did not press his own Government to publish the figures that were obviously available to them. As I, unlike Ministers in the previous Government, am to publish a detailed assessment of the matter, it would seem reasonable to await publication before trying to analyse the contents.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend be in no way deterred from implementing our election pledge on the sale of council houses? Does he recognise that by implementing that pledge at the earliest date we shall be fulfilling the dreams of tens of thousands of would-be council house buyers?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend puts the matter extremely accurately. I am sure that those buyers will understand that we are implementing our policy in the teeth of Labour opposition.

Mr. Eastham: Does the Secretary of State recognise the problem that he is introducing for local authorities when he instructs them to curtail expenditure? As a consequence of the Government's policy, more manpower will be required by local authorities in facilitating transactions for the sale of council houses. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make allowances to local authorities in their public expenditure to offset the burdens that he is imposing upon them?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that all local authorities will wish to make their own judgments on where the priorities for expenditure lie. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the authorities that have already sold council houses on a considerable scale have often produced large revenue surpluses as a consequence.

Mr. Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures on which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has made his judgment are based on the assumption that rents will rise in


line with inflation, which has never happened? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is now pushing the idea of increasing council rents all round.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that many hon. Members have come to regard with some suspicion the figures upon which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) bases his judgment.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Secretary of State intend to sell, or persuade people to buy, at least one-third of the total stock of municipal houses? If that is so, is he aware that existing statistics indicate that rents will increase by one-quarter. Does that worry him?

Mr. Heseltine: If I were able to persuade one-third of council tenants to buy their homes, I should add 2 million owners to the present total. I should regard that as a remarkable achievement.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the position in Southampton, where some tenants have been waiting for one year to 18 months to buy their council homes? Is he further aware that, through no fault of their own, their homes have been revalued in the meantime and the properties are costing between £2,000 and £3,000 more than the original verbal agreement? Is my right hon. Friend considering taking steps to reduce that problem? Is he finding that some local authorities' staff are slowing down the process through dogma?

Mr. Heseltine: I ask my hon. Friend to await publication of the Bill, which will answer his question clearly. There are two ways in which delays may take place. The first is administrative delay, which I deeply regret although in some circumstances it is understandable. What is totally unforgivable is the wholly doctrinal and dogmatic position of Opposition Members.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Secretary of State aware that a crucial ingredient of the public expenditure implications of the sale of council houses is the cost to the Exchequer of tax relief on mortgage interest payments? Is he further aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told me that it is impossible to make a meaningful estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of the tax relief on the sale of any given number of council houses?

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is not possible to make such an estimate, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do so?

Mr. Heseltine: I find the right hon. Gentleman's question difficult to square with the fact that we understand that a detailed paper was put to Ministers in the previous Administration which achieved exactly that purpose. Perhaps the question offers an answer that is important to the House. When I produce my financial analysis the House will realise that, according to the figures fed into the assumptions, so the results will vary dramatically. As one looks ahead for many years, one can make more or less whatever judgment one likes. That is purely a matter of personal opinion. It is for that reason, presumably, that the Labour Government considered the matter and decided that it was not worth publishing an estimate.

Local Authorities (Manpower)

Mr. Tom Benyon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of local authority staff numbers.

Mr. King: On 8 September 1979, the joint manpower watch figures, published today, showed 2,092,271 full-time equivalent staff in local authorities in England and Wales. This figure represents a decrease of 11,871 full-time equivalent staff since June 1979, but is still 18,185 up on the figure for September 1978.

Mr. Benyon: Does not that put into perspective the outlandish scares about severe cuts in services, since councils are employing more staff than they were at this time last year? Currently it appears that the figure for the employment of local authority staff is standing at an all-time high.

Mr. King: I hope that all hon. Members, especially those who are most profuse in their complaints about the severe effects of cuts on local government, will take the opportunity to study the joint manpower watch figures published today. They will find that across a wide category of employment in local authorities there is a continuing increase in employment, even though we asked for a curb on


further recruitment in the interests of economy.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister willing to admit that the reason why there has not been a dramatic reduction in the number of staff employed by local authorities is that even Conservative-controlled local authorities are now standing out in opposition to the Government's policies, which are attacking local authorities and requiring them to cut services? Is he also aware that within local government, especially among Conservative councillors, there is a strong feeling that the Government's proposals to pay local authority chairmen and to reintroduce political honours is a cynical and mercenary attempt by the Government to buy off Tory councillors who are opposed to the Government's policies?

Mr. King: In terms of the reductions that we are seeking, the cuts are nothing like as savage as those that were imposed on local authorities when the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was Secretary of State for the Environment. The right hon. Gentleman imposed them as a result of the IMF cuts, and they had to be effected within that year. Part of the problem that we now face is that, having earlier recognised the need for economy, the right hon. Gentleman positively invited further recruitment last year, and invited local authorities to plan for growth. That was a totally irresponsible call in the light of the national economic position.

Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, notwithstanding the argument of the hon. Member for Bootle, (Mr. Roberts), one of the restraining factors in the attempt to reduce local government staff is the determination of certain Labour authorities to carry on as though nothing has changed, and to increase staff by 200 or 300 over the next year?

Mr. King: We hear some well publicised statements from some authorities, but I think that the great majority of responsible authorities now recognise the seriousness of the position. We still have a considerable way to go, but I hope that the figures represent a start. We shall look to local authorities in the coming months. As further figures come forward, we hope to see further encouraging trends.

Urban Development Corporations

Mr. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has plans to establish further urban development corporations other than those in Liverpool and London.

Mr. Heseltine: I have no plans to set up urban development corporations other than in Merseyside and in London Docklands.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he realise that many local authorities would dearly love powers similar to the UDCs for themselves, to enable them to cut through red tape and get on with the job?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that my proposals have been widely welcomed on both sides of the House and by a wide audience outside.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State recall a speech that he made in Liverpool in March or April of this year, when he said that the re-election of a Labour Government would no doubt mean the establishment of yet another quango to try to sort out the problems of Liverpool's dockland? What has suddenly brought about this great change of mind? Is he further aware that there are now 11 different agencies trying to sort out the problems of inner-city Liverpool? Will he say what accountability there will be on the part of the new UDC, and how much it will cost—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that there are hon. Members who were not in the Chamber at the beginning of Question Time, when I appealed for brief supplementary questions to enable other hon. Members to be called.

Mr. Heseltine: I have never believed that everything that the Labour Party proposes is wrong—it is just that it usually is.

Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that private enterprise will come to the docks in Liverpool and London only if there are special financial inducements or tax advantages? Is it proposed that the urban development corporations will offer such inducements?

Mr. Heseltine: The urban development corporation proposals are included in a Bill which is shortly to come before the House. We shall have the opportunity in a wide-ranging debate to consider exactly what powers and areas should be considered as appropriate to the urban development corporations. I believe that we should wait until then before making any final decisions.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all the experience of the new town movement suggests that the worst thing he could possibly do would be to set up urban development corporations in the teeth of local authority opposition in the areas concerned?

Mr. Heseltine: There are 5,000 acres of derelict land in the centre of London and 500 acres of such land on Merseyside. Unless we take the steps that I propose, that land will continue to be derelict.

Public Sector Housing (Rural Areas)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the present levels of public sector rented housing are retained in all rural areas.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): It is for local housing authorities to determine the appropriate levels of council house building in their areas within their capital allocations.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister explain the apparent conflict between his right hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Is he aware that farmers are being reassured that there will be no problems since relatively few rural homes will be sold? Does he agree that the purchase of many such houses will be sought, this creating severe problems in maintaining a social balance and an adequate rural economy?

Mr. Stanley: The answer lies in the statistics collected by the Labour Government as a result of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The number of lettings made to those being rehoused under that Act amounted to half of 1 per cent. of the total number of relettings in rural areas.

Mr. Straw: Why, in rural areas as elsewhere, is the Secretary of State allowing council houses to be sold at values well below the cost of building them? Is the Minister aware that during the election campaign his right hon. Friend categorically stated that the Conservative Party could not agree to the purchase of homes based on values below the cost of building them? Why has he broken his word?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman reads the consultation paper, he will be aware that the cost floor applies to all dwellings that have been completed since 1 April 1974.

Mr. Cockeram: Does my hon. Friend accept that the desire for home ownership is as great in rural areas as it is elsewhere?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Has the Minister noticed that whenever local authority houses are sold in rural areas they tend to fall into the hands of retired people from urban areas or of those who want second homes? Working-class families who live in rural areas are deprived of the opportunity of owning such houses. Why do the Government hold working-class people in rural areas in such total contempt?

Mr. Stanley: The overwhelming evidence is that those who buy their council houses do so with the intention of staying in them.

Inner City Areas

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the expertise and knowledge acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.

Mr. Lyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the knowledge and expertise acquired during the establishment of the new towns is made available to the inner cities in older conurbations.

Mr. Heseltine: The urban development corporations which I propose to set up for London and Merseyside Docklands


will be modelled on the new town development corporations. Several of the new towns are setting a useful example through the improvement of the older settlements now absorbed into their areas.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance. Does he agree that considerable benefit can be gained by involving private capital and private ownership at an earlier rather than a later stage in the development?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that that is one of the essential litmus papers by which the success of UDCs will be judged.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister knows that 8,000 houses await completion in my constituency as part of the Beckton district plan. Will he give that plan the go-ahead and confirm the Docklands strategic plan so that regeneration may go ahead as soon as possible?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Beckton plan is an independent proceeding. I am anxious to bring as much urgency as I can to the development of Docklands.

Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend consider forming an old town corporation run on new town corporation lines for inner areas where local authorities and national undertakings are hoarding land and leaving that land sterile and derelict?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I think that he has defined exactly what the urban development corporations will do.

Local Authorities (Manpower)

Mr. Major: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with local authority leaders regarding the publication of individual staffing figures, authority by authority.

Mr. King: The Department is discussing with the local authority associations how the central and local government joint manpower watch might be extended to publish centrally manpower figures for all individual local authorities. We have also invited them to discuss what manpower and other figures might be published locally.

Mr. Major: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the figures are made publicly available, individual authority by individual authority, so that ratepayers may know which authorities are increasing their staff levels at a time of restraint?

Mr. King: It is extremely important that the House, local authorities, councillors and local electors should have this information. I was unable to reply more fully to an earlier question about the performance of different local authorities in making economies because at present the information is aggregated and it is not possible to form selective judgments. Local electors are unable to form an informed judgment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he used to argue that public expenditure cuts were required to get the Government off the backs of the people? He then argued that they were necessary because of the economic situation. Is he now saying that there are no real cuts? Does he believe in keeping good public services?

Mr. King: I have tried to make it clear to the House—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me—that we must call for improved economies. The economies that have been made in certain areas have been used by a number of Labour Members as an excuse to make extravagant claims about the extent of the economies that are being asked for. Extremely worrying allegations have been made that have disturbed many people. The allegations were not true. I am not seeking to conceal the fact that economies are necessary. I merely wish them to be understood in their true perspective.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in local government quality is required and not quantity? Large local staffs do not necessarily bring the greatest benefits. We want fewer but better public services.

Mr. King: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's argument. That is why we think it important initially to call for a freeze on local government recruitment and to pursue that policy so that electors may know what is happening to the staffing levels of local authorities. My hon. Friend will have noticed, in an answer I gave which appeared in Hansard


recently, that in the past 15 years employment in local authorities has increased from 1·5 million to 2·6 million. I accept that there are some good reasons for that increase. However, it poses a number of questions—for instance, whether the increase was justified in some areas.

Mr. Park: What relevance do the figures have if they are not related to the needs of certain areas? Surely that is the factor which determines the number of staff necessary in a certain area.

Mr. King: The greatest value of the figures will be to reveal movements within individual authorities. I accept that it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between the employment levels of various authorities which may serve different levels of population. However, the figures will be helpful to individual electors in individual areas. They will be able to know what is happening to the movement of recruitment and employment within their authority.

Opencast Mining (Hindley Green)

Mr. Stott: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that there will be no adverse environmental conditions created by his decision to allow a five-year extension to mine opencast coal at the Albert site in Hindley Green.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): The letter giving my right hon. Friend's decision on this appeal sets out his conclusion that the need of the National Coal Board for the continued use of the Albert disposal point outweighs the traffic effects and other environmental objections. However, because of these objections, the life of the disposal point has been extended to November 1984 only.

Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that the decision made by his right hon. Friend to grant planning permission on the site, despite the fact that the county and district authorities have opposed it, has enraged my constituents who live in the Hindley Green area? Is he aware that when the site is fully operational there will be 24 lorries an hour leaving the site and heaving up and down the roads in my constituency? How can the hon. Gentleman justify a decision that will lead to great stress and hardship to those living

in and around the area, who are sick and fed up of their environment being continually abused?

Mr. Fox: My right hon. Friend took into account all the matters that were brought to the inspector's notice. It is a temporary decision. In five years it is hoped that the NCB will find a more acceptable site. There were seven conditions attached to the decision, the seventh being that only 20 per cent. of the coal should be removed by road.

Development Commission

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has, relating to the future of the Development Commission and its associated organisation, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. King: The functions of the Development Commission and COSIRA are currently under review.

Mr. Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those organisations are very important, particularly in rural areas, that they need adequate resources, that it is totally in line with Conservative policy to help small businesses, and that occasionally there is a real case for having seed corn?

Mr. King: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and I know the value that many hon. Members place on the work done by the Development Commission and COSIRA. We are conducting a quick review, which I hope will be completed within the first two months of next year. We recognise the role that the Development Commission and COSIRA have played. On funding, we are anxious to find ways to encourage their work, other than through public resources, and I am encouraged by the response that the Development Commission has received. I understand that it is likely to get access to substantial funds from the private sector and from clearing banks, and that could be of great benefit. That is important in achieving our social and employment objectives without the restraint that may arise from public expenditure cuts.

Mr. Newens: Does the Minister recognise that frequently the biggest problem facing those who wish to set


up a small enterprise in a rural area is that of obtaining industrial premises? Does the Minister accept the necessity of providing industrial estates where premises can be rented cheaply, such as were previously provided by new town corporations and which the Secretary of State now proposes to sell off?

Mr. King: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman managed to drag new town corporations into the subject of industry in rural areas. There is a problem as regards premises, and many district councils are helping to support the installation of small new industrial estates. We also attach great importance to the use of existing buildings in rural areas. The Secretary of State and I have stressed to the planning authorities that they should allow better use of existing buildings, such as farm buildings, that are suitable for small industrial purposes.

Mr. Kimball: Could not the grant-aided functions of COSIRA and the Development Commission be undertaken by the Department of Trade? Are not both of those organisations quangos which should go?

Mr. King: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the Department of Trade would be the most obvious home for those activities. However, we are reviewing their operation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are concerned about the problems affecting rural areas and we are keeping these alternative propositions in mind.

Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that the Development Commission and COSIRA are held in high regard for the work that they have done? Does he recognise that that has been achieved because of Government aid? Is not the review a way of getting out of giving Government help? The right hon. Gentleman claims that private funds are available, but I doubt that very much.

Mr. King: We wish to discover how the rural areas can be helped most effectively. The obsession of Labour Members with public help has been a positive hindrance to making real improvements in rural areas. As I have said, the Development Commission, with our encouragement, has now found ways of increasing

the funds available to it, by enlisting private sector financial support. Many of the projects in which COSIRA and the Development Commission are involved are perfectly viable and do not necessarily need to be funded purely from public funds.

Tenants (Right of Purchase)

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has now completed his study of the possibility of providing a statutory right of purchase for private and housing association tenants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stanley: Regarding private tenants, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on 11 June. As far as housing association tenants are concerned, we shall provide wide powers to enable housing associations to sell to sitting tenants, and are still considering to what extent such powers might be combined with a right to buy.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that that is an entirely unsatisfactory answer. Is he further aware that it is totally reprehensible for a Government who are supposedly committed to home ownership to apply double standards as regards a person's right to buy? The Government are acting like a tame pussy cat about private owners but like a dictator towards local authorities. Does he appreciate that the Government are making the housing tasks of those authorities very difficult?

Mr. Stanley: On our best estimate, over the past 40 years, 800,000 private tenants have purchased their homes from landlords. I only wish that Labour councils had furthered the cause of home ownership to the same extent among their tenants.

Mr. Scott: Will my hon. Friend consider allowing tenants of private blocks of flats a collective right to purchase, when that block comes on to the market?

Mr. Stanley: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He has made strong representations to us as have other of my hon. Friends, and we are certainly considering that point.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether tenants who have lived


in privately owned houses for a long time, and who have spent thousands of pounds in making those properties habitable, should be given statutory authority to purchase those homes?

Mr. Stanley: The Government have the right to dispose only of assets that are in public ownership.

Mr. Alton: If the Minister is not prepared to give general consent so that all private tenants can become home owners, does he accept the principle that those who are living in homes where landlords will not provide inside sanitation should have the right to serve notice on those landlords of their intention to acquire the property and so become home owners and do the improvements themselves?

Mr. Stanley: There are certain circumstances under existing legislation where privately rented property can be compulsorily improved. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the consultation paper on improvements, he will see that arrangements are being made whereby property can be improved on a piecemeal basis. That will make the basic improvements, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, easier to undertake.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), namely that where blocks of flats are sold, particularly in inner city areas, tenants should collectively be given the opportunity, under the new legislation, to match the price of a particular transaction? After all, it is their homes that are involved.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has already written to us on that point and we are considering the matter.

Mr. Kaufman: Now that the Minister has come out of hiding and admitted that the sale of council houses is part of a policy of disposing of public assets, rather than assisting home ownership, now that he has asserted that he does not wish those who live in privately tenanted houses to be able to buy them, and as lie has not given a commitment that tenants of housing associations will be given the right to buy—although they are public sector tenants—does he agree that the Government are simply pursuing a vendetta against local authorities?

Mr. Stanley: With regard to housing association tenants, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to await the details that will be found in the Bill when it is published. Only the right hon. Gentleman could conclude that the policy of selling council houses to sitting tenants does not encourage home ownership.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

Mr. Peter Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received from local authorities to his request for economies in local government spending in 1980–81.

Mr. Heseltine: Local authorities have not yet completed their plans for 1980–81. However, the local authority associations have assured me that the economies which we are seeking can be achieved.

Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for that generally encouraging reply. What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take over authorities such as the London borough of Lambeth, which have expressed their unwillingness to co-operate with his calls for economy?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall ask the House to give me powers to deal with those authorities which have flagrantly and consistently ignored the Government's request for proper and prudent management of their affairs.

Mr. Crowther: Does the Secretary of State agree that enormous economies have already been made in local government during the last four or five years? Has it not now reached the point where any further economies will lead to the public being deprived of services to which they are entitled?

Mr. Heseltine: In one respect I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, capital expenditure by local authorities was gravely reduced on a wide basis. Of course, on staff levels, as my right hon. Friend has said, we now have a situation where we have the largest ever number of people employed in local government, subject only to the change that my hon. Friend has just announced.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend note the shining example of the borough of Preston, which reduced its rates from 32p to 8p in the pound, which


reduction was brought about, among other things, by a reduction in staff without hardship or heartbreak? Will he offer that as an example to the London boroughs of Lambeth and Haringey as a way in which they could reduce their staff and rates to the benefit of their ratepayers?

Mr. Heseltine: It would be very difficult for me to improve on my hon. Friend's contribution.

Mr. John Grant: Is it not time that Ministers stopped shedding crocodile tears about the role of the voluntary bodies, and in particular stopped urging local authorities to continue their support for them while at the same time cutting off the essential funds that make it possible for that to happen?

Mr. Heseltine: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Labour Party voted so often for policies of that sort that they must have become used to it by now.

Building Regulations

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the persons and organisations who have submitted evidence to him in connection with his review of the building regulations.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: We have received comments from a wide variety of people and organisations. If my hon. Friend wishes, I shall place a list in the Library, excluding, of course, those private individuals who wrote in confidence.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he give the House some indication as to when we can expect some liberalising of the building regulations because many industrialists in particular find that building regulations are a gross inconvenience in relation to the future development of their industries?

Mr. Finsberg: I hope that it will not be too long. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that, although a variety of comments have been received, all agree that building control needs substantial change.

Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the minimum standards of thermal insulation will be uprated rather than removed?

Mr. Finsberg: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we recognise that energy conservation is a vitally important issue, for which provision will be made.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the efforts of local authorities to control their expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 14 November to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in which I welcomed the assurance I had received from the local authority associations about the co-operation of the vast majority of authorities.

Mr. Adley: In the light of the concern about local government waste and failure to trim unnecessary expenditure, will my right hon. Friend perhaps give his moral support to the creation of "fiscal vigilantes", comprised of local people, such as has been started in respect of the Birmingham housing corporation, to keep an eye on local government expenditure? Does he not consider that local ratepayers are perhaps the best people of all to point out what they consider to be misdemeanours in expenditure matters by their own local authorities?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. The answer that I would give him is simply that the powers that we shall seek from Parliament is the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill will enable us to ensure that a wide range of information about the performance of individual authorities is available, which will enable local people and the local press to make much more informed judgments upon such matters than they are currently able to do.

Mr. loan Evans: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is deep anxiety among county and borough councillors about the financial proposals in the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill that will shortly come before the House? Will he have serious consultations with the local authorities before that monstrous Bill is presented?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that it is now too late to promise further consultations


with the local authorities, but we shall now have the widest possible consultation process, which is what the procedures of this House are all about.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend offer his unqualified support to the anti-waste drives that have been launched by a number of newspapers, such as the Leicester Mercury, in areas where local government waste is apparent at the moment?

Mr. Heseltine: It adds to the strength of local democracy if local people and the local press become involved in the debate about the wide range of options for reducing public expenditure. I have no doubt whatever that there are a considerable number of areas where local authorities can reduce public expenditure on a scale that has not yet been requested.

Mr. Allen McKay: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that local people are the best people to decide what they want, why is he and the Government interfering with that right by imposing policies on those local authorities which the local people freely elected to do the things that they wanted to be done?

Mr. Heseltine: Because the policies that the Government were elected to carry through with regard to the sale of council houses carry the mandate of the whole of the people. What hon. Members must clearly understand is that this House has a right to prevail over the local authority view so long as there is a mandate to do so in a general election. That is exactly the claim that was made by Labour Members when they pushed the Education Act through this House.

Housing Investment Programme

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the original total of the housing investment programme allocations for 1979–80; and what was the total of the reductions in those allocations which was notified to individual housing authorities in August.

Mr. Stanley: £2,862 million and £318 million respectively for authorities in England, both at 1979–80 outturn prices.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that there is all-party agreement on the

Conservative-controlled Leeds city council that the cuts this year will make even more difficult the problem of dealing with the 15,000 people on the waiting list, the 19,000 pre-war council houses that require improvement and just as many private tenants who require their homes improved? Can the Minister explain why the HIP for next year has recently been withdrawn from regional offices back to Whitehall? Does that indicate that there will be further cuts in the HIP for next year? Will not that make housing problems even more difficult to resolve?

Mr. Stanley: With regard to Leeds, I am not able to offer an increased allocation for this year. However, as the council so far, in the first half of this financial year, has spent somewhat under half of its allocation—about 44 per cent.—I am sure that it will wish to make certain that it takes up its allocation in full. In addition, it has some tolerance from the previous year which it is able to carry forward. As to the HIP allocations, I am not yet able to make those.

Mr. Hattersley: With regard to the HIP allocation for 1980–81, which has been very much delayed because of the strange processes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) referred, can we be assured that it will be brought forward in sufficient time to enable local authorities to make their plans? Secondly, can we be categorically assured that it will not be sneaked out during the recess?

Mr. Stanley: I do not have the actual dates for the recess in 1978, but I notice that in that year—the financial year 1978–79–the allocation was made on 4 January.

Central Berkshire Structure Plan

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a final decision on his proposed amendments to the central Berkshire structure plan.

Mr. Fox: The final decisions will be taken when we have completed our consideration of the objections to the proposed modifications.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In the meantime, can my hon. Friend confirm that he will


take carefully into account the stern interview that he had yesterday with four Conservative Members of Parliament from the county of Berkshire and assure me that he will take account of the many representation that he has already received, and will receive, in this matter?

Mr. Fox: I can assure my hon. Friend that, along with the many other objections—the closing date being tomorrow—the fullest consideration will be given to these matters before my right hon. Friend announces his approval.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the deep concern in the county of Berkshire to the effect that the infrastructure costs for providing services for the projected 10,000 houses may fall upon the ratepayers of Berkshire?

Mr. Fox: The most forceful point that was made yesterday concerned the question of funds for the infrastructure. Certainly, within our proposals, those matters will be very fully considered.

Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that these proposals have caused more trouble in the county of Berkshire than any other proposals that I can recollect? However, I am quite certain that he will take into consideration all the objections that have been put to him, particularly the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-

Wilson) about the infrastructure and who will pay for it.

Mr. Fox: Brekshire is perhaps under more pressure than any other part of the country in certain respects. It is because of that that we shall give the fullest consideration to all these points.

Building Land

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on his proposals for speeding up the release of land for building.

Mr. King: A number of proposals to streamline the planning system and encourage the release of land for development will be set out in our Local Government, Planning and Land Bill.

Mr. Latham: As it is difficult, in structure planning, to reconcile the need for an adequate amount of land for the house building programme with the need to conserve good agricultural land, is it not all the more important to see that surplus public sector land is released and that inner-city improvement area schemes go ahead as soon as possible?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have a proposal to encourage the bringing on to the market of under-used publicly-owned land in urban areas. We hope that that will help to meet the important need of land availability for house building.

POST OFFICE BOARD (INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY)

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): With your permission, Mr. Speaker I will make a statement about the future of the Post Office Board.
It is the Government's policy to encourage increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests, but it is not for the Government to lay down how this should be achieved. The precise arrangements are for discussion and agreement between employers and their employees in the light of the particular circumstances of each individual business. This applies equally to nationalised industries, subject to any necessary Government and parliamentary approval.
In the case of the Post Office, the management and the Council of Post Office Unions agreed two years ago that there should be an experiment in industrial democracy at all levels in the business, including the main board. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), facilitated in January 1978 the main board experiment by appointing seven representatives of the Post Office trade unions to be part-time members of the board. He also appointed two consumer representatives. These appointments are due to expire on 31 December, at the end of the agreed two-year period of the experiment.
In accordance with our general policy, it is for the Post Office and the Post Office unions to decide together what form they wish employee participation to take after the end of this year. One thing is quite clear at the present time—they do not agree that this particular experiment at main board level should continue. Broadly, the unions are in favour of a continuation, while management and a majority of the independent members of the board are not.
The chairman of the Post Office is continuing consultations with the unions and is making new proposals for close employee involvement in top level Post Office decision-making. It is for the Post Office management and the unions to agree on the way forward. I shall, of course, be ready to take any action that might fall to me to facilitate whatever new arrangements might be agreed

between the Post Office and the unions. If an agreement were to be reached within the next two months which required such action, this could include bringing before Parliament an order under the terms of the Post Office Act 1977 to make permanent the statutory powers to make additional appointments to the board. However, in the absence of agreement that the two-year experiment should continue, the board appointments made for the purpose of that experiment will lapse at the end of the year.
I should like to express my appreciation of the contribution made by all those who have played a part in this experiment.

Mr. John Silkin: The Secretary of State started his statement by saying that it was not for the Government to lay down how increased involvement of employees in decisions affecting their interests might be encouraged. Does he agree that that is a totally different attitude from the one that he takes to the National Enterprise Board, in that on several occasions he has asked for trade union representation? He says that it is clear that there is a disagreement between the Post Office management and the unions on the question whether the experiment should continue. Was that not always the case right from the beginning? Indeed, was it not the case when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), the former Secretary of State for Industry, rightly insisted that the experiment should take place against the then wishes of the management? That has not changed.
In ending the experiment, the consumer representation is also brought to an end. Is it not a fact that the Post Office management would also object to consumer representatives for just the same reason that they would object to union representatives? When will the Secretary of State publish the Warwick university report? That report is highly critical of management's attitude to the experiment and is extremely favourable to the continuation of the experiment. However the Secretary of State cares to dress up the matter, at a time when industrial relations throughout the country as a result of his Government's attitude is at its lowest, this will be seen as an attack upon the trade union movement and upon industrial relations.

Sir K. Joseph: There is a great difference between the National Enterprise Board, which is an agency set up by the Government with trade union members, and a trading business such as the Post Office, which serves the customer. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he suggests that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, had to impose trade union participation in the main board upon Sir William Barlow. Sir William Barlow has told me that he was most courteously asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether, the trade union experiment having been proposed, he still wished to take the chairmanship of the Post Office. He accepted the invitation with enthusiastic agreement to an experiment that he hoped at the time would succeed.
I propose shortly to appoint new independent members to the Post Office Board and I shall bear in mind the point made about representation for the consumer. The board serves primarily to look after the consumer's interest. The Warwick university report will be laid in the Library. It was commissioned by the Post Office Board and I understand that it is being made available for publication.

Mr. Silkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question about consumers? I made the point that the Post Office Board would be against the appointment of consumer directors. At the start of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not interfere with anything that took place within the management of the Post Office.

Sir K. Joseph: As a whole, the board would regard its prime duty as being to serve the consumers. As part of that duty, it is essential that it should have the good will of those who work for the Post Office. That forms part of an effective service to the consumer. The appointment of specific representatives on the board to represent the consumers' interest is a possibility that the Government will consider. However, I, for one, regard the board's function as being directed towards the service of the consumer.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I appreciate the restrictions on my right hon. Friend's position in the matter and his enlightened approach to these questions, but is this not, on the face of it, a retreat from the

concept of employee participation? Most of us would like to see that participation progress in the interests of industrial relations and improved productivity. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend cross-examine closely and conscientiously the Post Office management about the reasons underlying its attitude and any alternative proposals that it might have?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. and learned Friend would not be happy if the Government imposed upon one unwilling partner a constitution, after the allotted period, of an experiment that was undertaken by agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has taken immense trouble to consult everybody concerned and I have read the papers that have been provided. I understand that Sir William Barlow, in whom I have great confidence, proposes that there should be closer participation with the trade unions. He will be making those proposals at the right time.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Secretary of State explain why he has caved in to the chairman of the Post Office Board and killed off this rather imaginative experiment in industrial democracy? The right hon. Gentleman seems to rest on the idea that an agreement between Post Office management and trade unions was an essential prerequisite for the experiment to proceed. Legislation that was enacted in this House made no such provision.

Sir K. Joseph: But it is precisely so. Agreement was the essential prerequisite. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, emphasised that it was by agreement that the development of participation was encouraged.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us, on both sides of the House, who are believers in an extension of consultation across the floor of industry and the extension of industrial democracy, do not think that the disappearance of this experiment with worker directors is a retreat? Does he not agree with me that the real lesson that has come out from, for example, West Germany, in the successful practice of industrial democracy is that it is better developed by starting down the line rather than at the top of the line, and that co-determination and consultation


are better achieved at the middle range of management and below that?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that there is much in what my hon. Friend says. I emphasise that all the arrangements for participation between unions and management in the Post Office, except that at the main board—and they are very extensive—will continue.

Mr. Golding: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Labour Members are appreciative of the courteous and very constructive manner in which the Minister of State has tried to tackle this problem? Is he further aware that many of us who are members of the Post Office Engineering Union are disturbed that detailed talks with management on this question did not take place earlier, but that we are very hopeful that in the forthcoming talks between the unions and management industrial democracy will be continued? We hope that that will be so, as we are fully committed to it because we believe that it has so much to offer.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about my hon. Friend's conscientious consultation. I note his other remarks, although I must say that I think that the subject of the continuation of the experiment has been extensively discussed over recent months between management and the trade unions, and by the board itself in two full discussions.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while an organisation of the size and scope of the Post Office must obviously make its contribution to the evolution of industrial democracy, the Post Office carries a most formidable national responsibility in the area of information technology and in ensuring that British industry as a whole has every opportunity of using the most modern forms of information technology? Will he, therefore, encourage the Post Office to continue with the dismantling of the restrictions that it has currently imposed on applications over a very wide area?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend will know that in a previous statement the Government's intentions in this field have been made plain.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that not only is there a need to discuss the Warwick report but there will be a need in the weeks ahead to discuss the evidence coming from the experiment? Will he concede that there will be two reports coming from the experiment, and that an undertaking was given in 1977 that the House would have an opportunity to debate the outcome of this experiment?
Finally, will the Secretary of State impress on the chairman of the Post Office Board, Sir William Barlow, the urgency of coming to a further agreement with the unions for the reintroduction of this experiment and ask him to treat this matter very seriously indeed?

Sir K. Joseph: I am anxious that as much information as possible should be made available. I can tell the House that in addition to the Warwick university report, which will be placed in the Library, there will be placed in the Library, by the initiative of the Post Office Board, the relevant board minutes and the discussion on which the experiment was considered.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be serious disappointment and anger about the fact that he should have allowed the management alone to veto a scheme, in that boards do not veto appointments by Ministers and cannot do so, and that the whole principle of industrial democracy is that one is moving towards joint determination?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed changes in the Post Office and the introduction of new technology there both make the continuation of this experiment most necessary?
Thirdly, why has the right hon. Gentleman not acceded to the representations of the TUC, members of which have been to see him on, I think, two occasions and have asked for a further three months to be allowed for a proper joint evaluation between the unions and the management before a final decision is taken?

Sir K. Joseph: I have a whole sheaf of quotations here from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), emphasising, perfectly honourably and straightforwardly, that this experiment and its continuation rested upon agreement by both sides. It


is not the Government, let alone I, who are bringing this experiment to a close; it is the fact that there is no such continuing agreement.
There is a breathing space, a period of grace, inasmuch as although the membership of those appointed for the experiment lapses at the end of this year there is still an opportunity permanently to renew the facility for there to be extra board members, if the House chooses to use the period given by the original Act and to invite me, because of agreement between the unions and the Post Office management, to lay an order before about the beginning of February.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising, provided that questions are brief—and it is dependent upon that.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the consumer representatives would not have been on the board if the Liberal Party had not insisted that they were put there? What possible reason has he now for not ensuring the continued presence on the board of people who owe their allegiance to the consumers?

Sir K. Joseph: I acknowledge that it was the Liberal Party that sought to have two independent members appointed for that purpose, but I repeat that the chairman of the Post Office, Sir William Barlow, and the board as a whole—I hope—hold the interests of the consumer to be their prime concern. We distort the purpose of boards of management if we think that we have to appoint special representatives for the consumer in order that the consumer shall be served.

Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman has clearly been studying carefully the parliamentary proceedings on the Post Office Act 1977, perhaps I may ask him whether he recalls that, as reported at column 77 of the proceedings on 27 June, in response to an Opposition amendment calling for a White Paper to be presented to Parliament by the Government on the outcome of the report, I, on behalf of the Government, gave a firm undertaking that a report by the Government would be presented to Parliament, and that that undertaking which I gave

was welcomed from the Opposition Front Bench. Therefore, while we welcome the information that is to come from the Post Office and from the Warwick university report, may we ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will fulfil what was a joint undertaking and, within the next three months, present a Government report to Parliament, so that Parliament may consider it?

Sir K. Joseph: I shall have to look up the context in which the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, but I am quite sure that in the absence of agreement I have no power to continue this experiment.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: No matter what the Secretary of State may say about the position of the chairman of the Post Office, his own position is perfectly clear. He is the Minister who appoints the board and it is up to him to make an assessment of the value of this experiment. How can he, within two years, make an adequate assessment of this situation? Secondly, will he say how he thinks that his decision not to reappoint the union members to the board will in some way improve industrial democracy and further better industrial relations?

Sir K. Joseph: I fear that I have a much simpler question to ask than that which the right hon. Gentleman invites me to consider. I have to ask: is there an agreement? There is not an agreement. Only if there were to be agreement was a continuation of this experiment proposed under the original Act.

Mr. English: If the prime duty of the board is what the right hon. Gentleman says it is I assume that he has pointed out to the board that it has been failing in its duty under successive Governments over the last few years by providing a worse service to its customers. Will the Secretary of State note that there is a view that trade unionists cannot readily sit on boards making management decisions to which their members might subsequently object? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the present situation in relation to the implementation of the Carter report?

Sir K. Joseph: I have been saying for some time, as has the chairman of the Post Office, that the standard of service to consumers has fallen. It is for that


reason that I have told the House that I am considering various possibilities, including modifications of the postal monopoly. As for the Carter report, I made a statement to the House a few months ago explaining that we hope to legislate in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not the case that the Government refuse to intervene when there is a slap in the face for trade unions but will intervene to attack the trade unions whenever they can? If the Secretary of State does not intend to do anything until there is agreement why does he not tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to get agreement with the TUC before introducing an employment Bill?

Sir K. Joseph: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No".

Mr. Spriggs: The right hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion the directors of the Post Office Board represented consumer interests. Will he, instead of taking this attitude, think again and strengthen consumer representation on the board? I can tell him from experience that my parliamentary mail, which should arrive at my home not later than Saturday morning, regularly arrives on Monday

morning. That is a reason why it is essential that we should strengthen trade union representation on the board rather than take representatives off.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I regard the whole board as having the function of serving the consumer.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit to the House that the Warwick university report is highly critical of management's attitude throughout the experiment and that it praises the trade unions for their constructive role? Does he not understand that whatever he says to the House, and not matter what he said in his statement, his decision represents a retreat from industrial democracy that will put back the clock in industrial relations in the Post Office?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not wish to pursue the two last points made by the hon. Gentleman. I think that the phrase "industrial democracy" is misleading. I believe that participation is not put back one jot by the decision made today. As for the Warwick report, I regarded it as totally confidential to the Post Office. It was made available to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself only two days ago and I have not yet read it.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY(AGRICULTURE MINISTERS'MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 10 and 11 December. My hon. Friend the Minister of State in my Department and I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting.
At my request the Commission proposed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound in order to boost the resources available to British agriculture. The devaluation will take effect on 17 December for all the main commodities except cereals and eggs and poultry, where the change will take place at the start of the next marketing year on 1 August 1980. For wine, the devaluation will not take effect until December 1980. This devaluation will be of great importance to British agriculture and it will add about £150 million to farmers' returns in a full year. The effect on consumer prices will amount to one quarter of 1 per cent. on the retail price index, but it will be many months before the full effect of the0·25 per cent. increase reaches the shops. The Council also agreed a 5 per cent. devaluation of the Italian green lira.
The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to negotiate voluntary restraint arrangements by third countries exporting sheep meat to the Community. The mandate was in accordance with our insistence that any agreement should be a totally voluntary agreement on the part of New Zealand and that there would be no unbinding of the GATT tariff arrangements. We rejected a French proposal that there should be a threat of unbinding the GATT for any country that refused to reach a voluntary agreement.
We and the Commission also rejected a French request to the Commission that no action should be taken by the Commission in respect of the illegal French measures on sheepmeat imports. We again made it clear we would not accept any sheepmeat regime that failed to give a net benefit to Britain or included intervention.
Proposals were before the Council for a wine package designed to restore balance in the wine market and to avoid surpluses. The package was such that Community payments of £32·5 million per year would have resulted in equivalent Community savings of £32·5 million per year. We succeeded in negotiating a substantial reduction in the Commission's proposed FEOGA payments so that the savings will outweigh the payments and produce an anticipated net reduction in the Community budget of £6·5 million per year over the period of the programme. We also resisted French pressure to bring into the package, at the very last moment, an extension of present temporary arrangements protecting producers from low market prices at the end of long term storage contracts.
We secured an agreement that at the end of the current seven-year programme of restructuring, with its ban on new plantings, there would be a review by the Commission. This should ensure that planting controls will be maintained if there is any further risk of surplus production. The package finally agreed will therefore reduce the contribution of the United Kingdom towards Europe's wine regime.
Agreement was reached on a group of animal health measures, which fully meet the United Kingdom's requirements, and we obtained an extension for a further six months of the derogation enabling the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic and Denmark to maintain their national swine fever requirements for imports of pigs and fresh pigmeat.

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that report. Is he aware that with a 17 per cent. inflation rate and a record high minimum lending rate these factors are forcing our farmers into their present difficulties? Government policies are forcing the Minister to go for quick devaluations and to appeal to his agricultural colleagues in the Community who then blackmail him on other measures. It is the British consumer who suffers every time as a result.
Is the Minister aware that in the last six months since he came to office his devaluations and food price increases have increased the food price index by at least 2 per cent. and that the weekly


food bill of the average family has increased by 50p? Does he accept that though the farmers may have benefited by £300 million it is likely that the cost to the British consumer will be over £450 million?
The British housewife now realises that she has been conned. That is the reason for the 9 per cent. swing recorded today against the Tories by the women of Britain. Will the Secretary of State say specifically what this devaluation has added to the national food bill and what are the separate food increases?
The wine package appears to be a good deal. We hope that the reductions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will be realised. The Minister still seems to be standing firm on the issue of sheepmeat. Does he still maintain that any new regime to assist the French will not be at the expense of the Community but will come from the national French pursue? Will he continue to stave off any threats to New Zealand lamb exports to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman surprises me with his reasons for the increased farm costs. He did not mention the biggest increase that farm workers have ever had in their wages. If farm workers are to benefit by £220 million—a much better wage increase than they ever obtained under a Labour Government—the right hon. Gentleman must expect some increase, since the farming industry has to meet the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he talks of the negotiations for green pound devaluation resulting in the threat of blackmail. The negotiations resulted in a threat of blackmail that was totally unsuccessful. The French demanded that if they agreed to the green pound devaluation they must have a major concession on wine and a major agreement on sheepmeat. Even the Commission's proposals on wine were reduced by 20 per cent. as a result of the skilled negotiations by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The resulting wine package is of net benefit to Britain.
No concession of any kind was made on sheepmeat. After starting with what the right hon. Gentleman described as a "blackmail" technique the French

finished the day having achieved absolutely nothing. As for price increases, I do not think that I can do better than refer to the previous 5 per cent. devaluation by my predecessor, the Minister of Agriculture in the last Labour Government. When introducing his 5 per cent. devaluation he stated that when that devaluation—which was necessary for the well-being of British agriculture and to help safeguard employment in our pig-meat processing plants—had eventually worked through into prices it was expected to increase the retail price index by one-fifth of 1 per cent.
That was the view of a Labour Minister on a 5 per cent. devaluation. I am therefore surprised that his successor as spokesman on agriculture should take a different attitude. In relation to assurances about the position of New Zealand and sheepmeat, I guarantee that there will be no support from the British Government, which will provide Community financing for French farmers. Any premium system that we agree to must bring a net benefit to the United Kingdom. If there is no such system there will be no agreement on a system for sheepmeat. I categorically state that under no circumstances will the British Government change the conditions for the entry of New Zealand sheepmeat unless it is by voluntary agreement and based upon a decision by the New Zealand Government.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved. He has given nothing away, contrary to what is said in The Guardian today. What further steps can he take in the immediate future to open up the lamb export market to France? Does he agree that the present situation is damaging to farmers, particularly in the South-West of England.

Mr. Walker: I agree that the position has been exceedingly damaging. During the last year not only have the French pursued their present policy on sheep-meat; they have substantially reduced the quota compared with the allowance for 1978. The final rejoinder of the French Government to the Commission's legal procedures is due to take place today. I am glad to say that the Commission confirmed yesterday that it is its duty to ensure that the law is obeyed.
Mention has been made of the interpretation of the wine package. Credit is due to the Minister of State. Not only did the wine producers not receive what they required; even the Commission's proposals were cut by 20 per cent. through the Minister of State's efforts. That brought about a saving of £45 million on the total wine package over the period. I do not see how that can be interpreted as giving way.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the Minister on his determined efforts to give the farmers a much-needed boost to their incomes. Will the Minister point out to his Cabinet colleagues that because interest rates are running as they are, the package of £150 million is worth probably only £75 million? Does he agree that there is a need to bring down interest rates? I congratulate him on his resistance to the French demands, but when will there he help for the horticulture industry? Am I correct in believing that fuel subsidies are paid to Dutch and French horticulturists?

Mr. Walker: I agree that there are problems in the horticulture industry. Only one country has obtained benefit, and that is due to the provision of cheap gas in Holland, which is of particular help. Dutch horticulturists are angry because the Dutch Government have made substantial increases in the price of gas, in line with their undertaking to bring the price up to the price of oil. The Dutch Government are genuinely trying to achieve an appropriate adjustment in the Community in that respect.
Interest rates impose a heavy burden on the farming community. All my colleagues in the Cabinet hope that as a result of our policies we shall be able to reduce the interest rate in the near future. This boost to British agriculture is not just of direct financial benefit; it takes away the unfair competition for those countries with positive MCAs. I hope that that will provide a further boost for the agriculture community.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he skipped rather rapidly over the question of health regulations? What will happen to milk on 1 January 1980? The British consumer must be protected.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that question. I should like to make it clear that the general impression that our health regulations for milk will expire at the end of this year is untrue. The regulations on the metric pack end then, but the health position continues. In our view, and in the view of the Advocate General of the European Court, those health regulations are totally justified until such time as a European regulation is introduced. There is no prospect of a European regulation being introduced before 1982. Any such regulation will be applied only two years after that date. In our judgment there is no threat from milk imports.

Mr. Nelson: Was not the green currency system originally introduced partly to provide a subsidy to the consumer but mainly as a means of protecting the farmer against sudden fluctuations in the value of the currency in which he is paid? Is it not clear that the green currency system has worked to the detriment of British farmers? In view of that, and as we are approaching the devaluation parity of the sterling exchange rate, does my right hon. Friend have any views about the long-term future of the green currency system? Would it not be better to move towards discontinuing it?

Mr. Walker: The question whether we discontinue the system is not a matter for us alone. When there are large variations in currencies, without an adjusting mechanism there can be no common agriculture prices policy. At present we certainly do not have a common agriculture prices policy. After today's 5 per cent. devaluation the prices paid to British farmers will be the lowest or the second lowest, in the European Community. The whole operation of this mechanism has been bad for British agriculture. It was particularly bad during the period when we had a Government who allowed MCAs to develop against British farmers at 20 per cent. and 30 per cent.

Mr. Meacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nothing in the package, even in the interim, will permit the French to impose temporary import levies on British lamb? Will he confirm that any such action will be strictly illegal and outside the agreement.

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

Mr. John Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for this action on the horticulture scene. Did he put any questions to his colleagues about intervention in the apple industry? Did he begin to investigate the possibility of fostering the British apple juice industry, which is dear to the heart of the NFU?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. This was not on the agenda at the meeting but I recently met representatives of British apple producers. It was the most encouraging meeting in that sphere that my Department has had for many years. There was an appreciation that if we are to succeed in reviving that industry we must have better marketing and be as effective as the best in the Community. We must investigate the possibilities of the apple juice industry developing in Britain. I promise to work in close co-operation with the apple producers. I hope that we shall make substantial progress.

Mr. Jay: Is not the latest wrangle with the French further evidence that in Brussels issues are not decided on their real merits? Would not it be better for us all if each country decided its policies according to its own needs and paid for them itself?

Mr. Walker: That is the classic view of someone who is totally opposed to the European Community—and I understand it. The periods when some countries were not part of the Community were not noted for the brilliance of their Governments or their dramatic economic successes.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that since Britain's payments to the Community are related to the level of food imports the 5 pet cent. devaluation of the green pound that he has gained for milk will help to protect Britain from excess contributions to the EEC budget?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. The budgetary effects are relatively small, because, theoretically, in budget terms they are compensated for by adjustments in the MCAs—but that depends upon one's attitude towards MCAs. I have never shared the view that they are of great benefit to the country against which they are exercised.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware of the wide discussions on the ethyl alcohol

directive? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and myself are concerned about the possibility of damage to the £60 million BP chemical project at Grangemouth? Can the Minister say anything about that difficulty?

Mr. Walker: The alcohol regime was on the agenda, but it was decided to delay discussion on it until the next meeting.

Mr. Kimball: Was my right hon. Friend able to resist further blackmail on the question of sugar beet? Did he make it clear to our European partners that we cannot accept a reduction in the acreage of this valuable crop?

Mr. Walker: There was a discussion on sugar beet and on the Commission's proposals for milk. I said that a system of allocation based upon the previous four years—two of which were bad drought years for Britain, and when positive MCAs operated against us—would be totally unjustified. The crop this year takes up virtually the whole of our A quota. One should examine future resources on that figure and not on the average of the last four years.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound will halve the difference between United Kingdom and EEC prices, raising United Kingdom prices to a higher level than they would otherwise be? Will he also confirm that that will increase the cost to farmers of imported cattle feeds, such as maize, which is now running at over £50p a ton, and that therefore the increased income to the farmers will have to be offset against levies that go direct to Brussels?

Mr. Walker: I have given the details of the increase in prices. As to the second point, I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the figure of £150 million is net, after taking into consideration any increases in the cost of feeds. It was precisely for the type of consideration to which the hon. Gentleman referred that we arranged green pound devaluation for 17 December for livestock and all the other commodities, but deferred it to August for cereals.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sensible and rational adjustments to the green currencies can easily go hand in hand with pressing for agriculture to take a fundamentally lower proportion of the budget in future years?

Mr. Walker: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, the main reason for the massive increase in the cost of the budget is the cost of disposing of the substantial surpluses that have built up in dairy products, sugar and, to a smaller degree, cereals within the European Community. The tackling of this problem is fundamental. It is easy for Britain to tackle it, because we do not produce the surpluses, but it is vital that more effective action is taken to ensure that more resources are available for other European activities.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Minister accept that the ethyl alcohol problem, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), is closely related to the French wine industry? When the right hon. Gentleman discusses this matter at the next meeting will he give us an undertaking that he will not agree to allowing the French wine industry to unload fermentation alcohol on to the ethyl alcohol market?

Mr. Walker: I am well aware of this problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in close consultation with our industry on this matter and obviously we are adjusting our attitude accordingly.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the illegal banning of British exports of lamb to France? Will he also examine once more the alternative policies that are available to him, so that we can stress to the French Government, in more ways than one, how displeased we are with their attitude?

Mr. Walker: One of the reasons why, throughout most of yesterday's talks and negotiations, the attitude that we took had the backing of seven other member States was that they objected strongly to the attitude to the green pound negotiations that the French had taken earlier in that meeting. One of the reasons for the French attitude is that they are currently suffering from having put themselves into this illegal position. It is difficult for a country to claim to be communautaire and at the same time to act illegally. I believe that the French

are fast realising that the continuation of their position is against their own national interests.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places since the beginning of supplementary questions.

Mr. Stoddart: I wonder whether the Minister can help us a little more on our net contribution to the total Community budget. When we devalue the pound by 5 per cent., or any other percentage, does not our total net contribution to the Community fund increase, because the levies on food coming from outside the Community are increased? If that is so, does not that undermine Britain's present efforts to reduce our total net contribution?

Mr. Walker: No, Sir. I do not have the details of this, but the figures involved are very small. There are compensating factors both ways. The actual effect on the budget is a very small net figure.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would not be against the French or the Italians trying to sell more wine for consumption as wine in this country? However, I agree with Opposition Members who have put questions about the subsidy on wine to turn it into agricultural alcohol. There is a strong feeling in this country that my right hon. Friend should not allow that to be used as a horse-trading measure.

Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not allow any of these matters to be used as horse-trading measures. I think that that was shown clearly yesterday. It is not our intention to do that. The alcohol package in its present form would damage whole sections of our industry, and when it comes to the detailed negotiations of that package we shall be closely informed of the effects on our industry.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that he has had a fair amount of praise for his disastrous policy, contained in the statement that ate made this afternoon, bearing in mind that the burden will fall on the lower income groups in the future, as previously, unless this disastrous Government change their policies?

Mr. Walker: Presumably the hon. Member supported the Labour Government, under which food prices rose, on average, by 2 percent. per month. Therefore, his criticism of an action that increases prices by 1 per cent. over a year is hard to take.

Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that agriculture is the only British industry that suffers the injustices of the green pound? I welcome this 5 per cent. devaluation, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still his intention to secure further justice for British agriculture over ensuing years, thereby making it fully competitive?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, it was pledged in the Conservative Party manifesto that over the period of office of this Government we would eliminate the green pound difference, and we have not made bad progress in our first nine months.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 18 JANUARY

Members successful in the ballot were: 

Mr. Gerald Kaufman
Mr. John Stokes
Mr. Anthony Steen

BRITISH RAIL (LINE CLOSURES)

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to give a personal explanation, word for word, as agreed before I came into the Chamber.

Mr. Prescott: During Question Time in the House on 5 December a controversy arose concerning an alleged list of 40 railway line closures proposed as an option in the British Rail corporate review given to the Minister of Transport on 25 October. The Minister stated that no list of such proposed closures had been sent to him. I intervened to inform him and the House that I had a list of such closures bearing the name of the British Rail Board. I then asserted that he had misled the House.
I have read the written replies in today's Official Report given to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I therefore unreservedly withdraw the assertion I made that the Minister had previously received the list that I had handed over. I apologise to the Minister and to the House for my allegation that he had misled the House.

TOUR OPERATORS (CONTROL)

Mr. Ken Weetch (Ipswich): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the manner in which consumers should pay for the cost of services provided by tour operators and for connected purposes.
Providing package holidays is a multimillion pound business in Britain. Organised travel in Britain, which has received enormous popularity in the last 20 years, is now a well-established leisure activity. This Bill provides an opportunity to bring before the House aspects of the package holiday trade which are still unsatisfactory and to which critical attention should be drawn.
Every year millions of ordinary working-class families invest their hard-earned money in package holidays, and the vast majority of them have to save very hard. For a family with two children, for example, a package holiday abroad for 10 or 14 days can now cost well over £1,000, and for them that is a lot of money.
When those families take a package holiday with a tour operator they will discover that they have entered a special type of service contract. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are parties to a contract where the terms are loaded in favour of the package tour operator.
In the first place, they will have invested their money on the strength of nothing more than a glamorous picture and a couple of attractively but carefully worded paragraphs in a brochure. They will, in fact, have parted with their money in exchange for the minimum information about the holiday.
Secondly, unlike most other purchases that are made, package holidays are paid for wholly in advance. People pay hundreds of pounds across the table before receiving anything at all, or before any service is delivered. I do not want to get the package holiday trade out of proper focus. Most people have satisfactory holidays with tour operators. It is also a fact that the enterprise of tour operators has brought leisure to many ordinary people when it was out of reach only a generation ago. In addition, the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms

Act and the work of the Association of British Travel Agents have eliminated many of the abuses which once existed when the package tour trade was in its infancy.
However, it is still a fact that there are some injustices and inequities. When a person arrives at the hotel abroad and finds that it is a mockery of what was promised and he sees the holiday for which he has saved for years turning into a bitter resentful disappointment because the hotel and related arrangements were not properly checked or reported, there is a legitimate cause for grievance.
It has been pointed out that tour operators have well-established procedures for redress and for ultimate arbitration. That may be so, but it is too late when a holiday has been ruined. The consumer can find that his rights in the courts suffer from deficiencies in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Under these provisions the offence of misdescription by a tour operator is committed only when the prosecution can prove that the misdescription was knowingly or recklessly made. In my view this is anomalous and unreasonable.
Clearly, we need something to redress the balance more in the direction of the consumer. Therefore, this Bill says that the law should provide that as a general rule the consumer of a package holiday must pay only 75 per cent. of the holiday costs in advance, and that the remaining 25 per cent. should be paid into a secure bank account to be released to the tour operator only when the family concerned has had a satisfactory holiday. The virtue of this is obvious and has been pointed out by the European consumer law group. This will mean that the balance will have been redressed and the consumer will have a little financial leverage vis-à-vis the package tour operator.
Most important of all, there will be more incentive for and pressure on the tour operator to take every precaution that everything is checked regularly. If all these procedures are followed some of the horror holiday stories that many hon. Members hear about in their constituency correspondence from time to time will be eliminated at source. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Weetch, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. R. C. Mitchell, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. Ted Lead bitter and Mr. Gwilym Roberts.

TOUR OPERATORS (CONTROL)

Mr. Ken Weetch: Mr. Ken Weetch accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the manner in which consumers should pay for the cost of services provided by tour operators; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 February and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

Orders of the Day — ZIMBABWE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The House has had ample occasion to discuss Rhodesia in recent weeks. I made a further statement yesterday. I do not intend in this debate to go over again the events leading up to the constitutional conference at Lancaster House.
I shall, however, summarise briefly the points agreed at the conference and the various steps taken—or shortly to be taken—to implement them. This will enable the House to consider the Bill, which will be the final legislative step in the implementation of a settlement, against the background of all other legislation dealing with Rhodesia.
In mid-October the conference agreed the summary of the independence constitution, which provides for genuine majority rule while giving effective safeguards to the minority community. This was subsequently laid before the House as a Command Paper, No. 7758. The full text of the constitution has since been prepared, taking the summary as drafting instructions. An Order in Council providing for the constitution was made on 6 December and laid before the House the following day. Copies have been made available to hon. Members through the Vote Office.
The conference subsequently discussed arrangements for implementing the independence constitution. It was agreed that there should be elections supervised under the British Government's authority and that a British Governor should administer Southern Rhodesia during the period leading up to independence. The Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 gave the Government powers to appoint a Governor and bring


parts of the independence constitution into effect before independence to allow elections to be held. The Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, made under that Act on 4 December, created the office of Governor and established his powers. A further order under the Southern Rhodesia Act to provide for the holding of elections will be laid before Her Majesty in Council this evening and the House will have an opportunity to debate this at a later stage.
The conference then moved on to discuss a ceasefire. Both sides agreed to the Government's proposals for a ceasefire on 5 December, leaving only certain details of the implementation to be settled. The discusisons on this are still going on. The Government have tabled the fuller proposals which I mentioned to the House yesterday. We believe that they meet all the Patriotic Front's main concerns. As soon as the remaining points are resolved—and I hope it will be very soon—a formal ceasefire agreement will be signed, and the ceasefire will come into effect in a matter of days.
I informed the House yesterday of the Government's decision, against the background of agreement on all the major issues at the conference and the danger of losing the momentum towards a settlement, to send the Governor to Salisbury. With the Governor's arrival today, legality has been restored and remaining sanctions will be lifted. An order to revoke orders made under the United Nations Act will be laid before Her Majesty in Council this evening, and further necessary action will be taken by the Treasury and the Department of Trade in respect of exchange control and the import and export orders.
I apologise for inflicting on the House this rather lengthy catalogue of measures, but I hope it will have proved helpful. It is important that the complex process of restoring legality, unwinding the measures taken in response to UDI and bringing into effect the agreements reached at the constitutional conference should be clear.
The Zimbabwe Bill now before the House is the last major legislative step in this process. I regret that it has been necessary to compress the parliamentary timetable for its consideration and am grateful to right hon. Gentlemen

opposite for their understanding in this matter. But passage of the Bill is, for the parties to the conference, a crucial test of the Government's good faith. We have been able to persuade them—both sides—to make concessions, in many cases very difficult concessions, by assuring them that the end result will be independence. We have come a long way and we must take the appropriate steps to implement our part of the bargain, as we shall expect others to implement their part. It would be undesirable in the Government's view to leave the issue in doubt during the interim period. It is also important that the arrangements to be made on independence should be known well in advance to those, particularly individuals, likely to be affected by them.
I turn now to the principal particular provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the establishment of the independent Republic of Zimbabwe—this being the name agreed between all the parties at the constitutional conference. It follows that on independence the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom will no longer have responsibility for Southern Rhodesia, and the clause so provides. The remaining provisions of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, which deal with Britain's jurisdiction over Rhodesia, will cease to have effect.
The date of Rhodesia's independence will be fixed by Order in Council, which will be laid before Parliament after being made. It is not feasible to set a precise date now as would be normal in an independence Bill. We shall look to the Governor to make a recommendation in due course after consulting the parties. But, as the House will be aware, it was agreed at the conference that independence would follow elections, and the Governor's main task will be to make arrangements for these. Once elections have been held, the Governor will take the steps necessary under the constitution to appoint a Prime Minister and set in train the arrangements for the election of a President. Independence will follow.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As we do not know exactly when the elections will take place—we assume that they will be held some time early in the new year—would the right hon. Gentleman say that the Bill was being brought forward today for reasons


of parliamentary time and not for any other reason?

Sir I. Gilmour: No. The Bill is being debated now not just for that reason but for reasons that I have been trying to set out. It is important that everyone in Rhodesia should know that we are fulfilling our part of the bargain and that the individuals concerned should know how they stand. It is right that the departure—or the arrival now—of the Governor and the consideration of the Bill should take place more or less in conjunction.
I should like to make a general point concerning Rhodesia's position vis-a-vis the Commonwealth, which affects clauses 2 and 5 of the Bill and most of schedules 1 and 2.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York) rose—

Sir I. Gilmour: I think that I shall carry on for a bit.
The normal procedure in a dependent territory approaching independence is for the elected Government to be consulted on whether it wishes to seek Commonwealth membership. If it does, Her Majesty's Government inform the Commonwealth Secretariat, which in turn seeks the views of Commonwealth members. In the particular circumstances of Rhodesia, there will be no satisfactory means of establishing the wishes of the people of the territory on this point before independence. The decision is not one which it would be right for the British Government to take by proxy. I think it must be for the Government and Parliament of independent Zimbabwe to reach a decision. I am glad that hon. Gentlemen agree with me. As the House knows, there will of course be Commonwealth observers present during the elections.
The issue of Commonwealth membership must therefore be left for resolution after independence, and the Bill envisages that Rhodesia will attain independence outside the Commonwealth. I should add, however, that if the future Government of Zimbabwe, chosen in elections held under our authority, applied to join the Commonwealth, I have no doubt that the British Government would give the application their full support.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In that event, would that be the first instance of an independent country, when already independent, applying to become part of a Commonwealth and being so received?

Sir I. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman knows more about this matter than I. If he thinks that, I should be glad to accept his opinion. I think that he is correct. However, I shall confirm that. It would be an agreeable precedent to set. I am not quite certain about it, but I shall make some inquiries and give a definitive answer to the right hon. Gentleman later in the debate.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Did not the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) describe the situation correctly? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this procedure. Indeed, it is in every way to be welcomed.

Sir I. Gilmour: I think that that is correct. However, I shall confirm that later.
The Government have thought it right to make a number of transitional provisions in the independence Bill to minimise the consequences for individuals flowing from the fact that Rhodesians will cease to be Commonwealth citizens, or British subjects—the expressions are interchangeable—on independence. I shall deal with these more fully in due course.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with nationality and citizenship. The subject is complex and I ask the House to bear with me while I try to deal with it.
Exceptionally for a dependent territory, Rhodesia has had its own citizenship since 1949 and is listed in section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1948 as a country whose citizens are Commonwealth citizens. For the reasons which I explained earlier, Rhodesian citizens will cease to be Commonwealth citizens on independence—though this may revert to being so later. An amendment is thus needed to the British Nationality Act, and clause 2 deals with this.
The Government are concerned to minimise any disruption to the lives of individuals. Provision is therefore made in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill to continue in force certain nationality and immigration provisions affecting Rhodesian citizens. Those Rhodesians ordinarily resident in this country who would be


entitled, as Commonwealth citizens, to registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies under sections 5A(1) or 6(1), as modified, of the British Nationality Act 1948, by reason of their residence here, will be able to apply for registration as though they were still Commonwealth citizens for a transitional period of one year from the date of independence.
Schedule 1 to the Bill also continues for one year after independence section 12(6) of the British Nationality Act 1948, as amended by section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1958. I apologise to the House for these very complicated measures, but it will be appreciated that nationality law is something of a palimpsest or labyrinth of successive Acts. It is not easy to wend one's way through the matter or to decipher it, whichever method is used.
Under this provision, which is discretionary, a citizen of Rhodesia will be qualified to apply for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies for himself, and any of his minor children, if he was a British subject before 1 January 1949, is descended in the male line from a person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom and colonies, has close connections with this country and intends to settle here. I emphasise that in both cases these are a continuation of existing provisions, which the Government believe will help individuals whose position might otherwise be affected by the abrupt loss of Commonwealth status.
To leave the House in no doubt, I should like to make two points quite clear. First, there are a substantial number of Rhodesians who are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, not because of their connection with Rhodesia but because they or their fathers were born in this country. Their position will not be affected in any way on independence. They will retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. Because the independence constitution agreed at the constitutional conference permits dual citizenship in Rhodesia's law, there is no question of their having to make a choice.
Secondly, the independence Bill does not create any new citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. Nor will it lead—and I wish to emphasise this point—to

any new immigration commitment, apart from the people whom I mentioned.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is there not a provision to retain the power of a Commonwealth citizen who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies but who is patrial under section 2 of the Act? Does not that mean that 50,000 white Rhodesians will retain the right to come to this country after independence, although the effect of the original drafting of the Bill was to withdraw that right?

Sir I. Gilmour: Those people have that right anyway. The Bill does not affect their status in any way.

Mr. Julian Amery: There are numbers of descendants of Rhodesians who settled in Rhodesia with the encouragement of the British Government before and shortly after the First World War. Would the provisions outlined by the Minister cover them?

Sir I. Gilmour: That depends entirely on whether they have patriality. They are in the same position as people from Britain who settle in other parts of the world. The Bill does not affect their position.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for an amnesty in the law of the United Kingdom for certain acts.
Throughout the constitutional conference the Government have urged the need for reconciliation and a fresh start. Only if all parties in Rhodesia succeed in putting the past behind them will a new sense of national unity be created and all Rhodesians be able to work together for the construction of a peaceful and prosperous Zimbabwe.
There will be no less a need for reconciliation in our own relations with Rhodesia. We must get to know each other again. Contacts which have been broken for 14 years must be re-established. I do not underestimate the difficulties. But with agreement at last on the issues which have divided our countries there will be no place for recrimination or retribution. We must wipe the slate clean.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Am I right in thinking that clause 3, unlike some clauses, comes into force immediately Royal Assent is given—that is,


perhaps within hours and certainly within a day or two? If so, is there a possibility that the Patriotic Front will get its amnesty long before it has agreed, or at least finally agreed, to a ceasefire?

Sir I. Gilmour: That is true. But my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that we are talking about an amnesty in this country under English, not Rhodesian, law. That was dealt with in the Bill passed by the House last month. Under that legislation, an order will have to be made by the Governor.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that there will be no recrimination. Does he agree that the comparatively successful situation that we have now reached is partly due to the action of past Governments in imposing and maintaining sanctions up till now?

Sir I. Gilmour: When I said that there would be no place for recrimination or retribution, I meant that we should look forward. I am in no way criticising past Governments.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir I. Gilmour: I think that I must press on. I do not want to depress the House, but I still have a long way to go.
This need has been recognised in earlier proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia, including the Anglo-American proposals prepared by our predecessors. I am confident, therefore, that the House as a whole will accept, with the return to legality, the need to draw a line under the past and to wipe out the bitter memories of those years.
The Bill therefore provides for an amnesty in the law of the United Kingdom for acts arising out of the political situation in Rhodesia since UDI. The details of the acts covered by the amnesty, both those committed in furtherance of UDI and those committed in resistance to it, are set out in subsection (2) of clause 3.
The practical effects of this amnesty will be to prevent the prosecution in the United Kingdom of those who may be held to have committed such acts before the date of the Governor's arrival and

similarly to prevent the bringing of proceedings in tort in respect of such acts. Any civil or criminal proceedings which are pending on that date will cease, and any civil judgment already given in such proceedings will cease to be enforceable.
The amnesty proposed in the Bill applies only in the law of the United Kingdom. Any amnesty promulgated by the Governor comes under another Act My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has undertaken to inform Parliament before any such amnesty is granted, and a statement will be made in due course.
The remaining clauses of the Bill are of a more technical nature. Clause 4 enables provision to be made by Order in Council to deal with the consequences of Rhodesia becoming independent and not being part of Her Majesty's dominions or a member of the Commonwealth. We are confident that most of the changes which are needed are already covered by schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill, but there may be points which have been overlooked and which will need to be remedied later.
The clause also enables Orders in Council to be made for regulating claims against assets of the Government of Zimbabwe in the United Kingdom. The failure of the Rhodesian authorities to make payments for interest on and the redemption of Rhodesian stock over the past 14 years makes it necessary to take power, in the interests of equitable satisfaction of creditors, to deal with the situation when payments from Salisbury are resumed. Orders under this clause can be made retrospective to independence day, laid in draft, and are subject to affirmative resolution. I should add that the Government have left the parties to the conference in no doubt that an acknowledgment of pre-UDI debts and liabilities is an essential aspect of a settlement.
Clause 5 deals with the situation which would arise if Zimbabwe were to become a member of the Commonwealth after independence. The process of adapting the laws of the United Kingdom for which this Bill provides would then have to be reversed. The Government would be empowered to make the necessary changes by Order in Council which would be laid in draft and be subject to affirmative resolution. The House may think


it odd to provide for the effects of Rhodesia not being a member of the Commonwealth on independence in clause 2 and then to provide for the possibility of its rejoining in clause 5. But, as I have already explained, this is a necessary provision because it must be for the future independent Government of the country to decide whether they want to join.
Clause 6 provides for detailed amendments to other existing United Kingdom laws, in some cases only for a transitional period, which are necessitated by the main provisions of the Bill. For the most part, these are set out in schedules 2 and 3.
Schedule 2 deals more extensively with the consequences of Zimbabwe ceasing to be a part of Her Majesty's dominions and not becoming a member of the Commonwealth. The provisions of a number of Acts which require that the holders of certain offices—for instance, civil servants—be British subjects will not apply to citizens of Zimbabwe for a period of one year after independence. These people will also be allowed to remain members of local authorities until their term of office expires. They will remain eligible to vote at national and local government elections during the validity of any register on which they have been included while they were British subjects and be exempt from the liability to deportation in certain cases for a period of one year, plus any additional period during which their application for citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies is being processed.
The transitional period of 12 months from the date of independence during which these savings, as well as those affecting citizenship, will have effect gives reasonable time for the Government of Zimbabwe to reach a decision on Commonwealth membership and for an application to be dealt with by the Commonwealth, as well as for individuals to make any necessary adjustments to their private affairs.
Schedule 2 also continues in force provisions for the registration of colonial probates and for maintenance orders and those relating to a dominions register of companies. Southern Rhodesians presently registered on a Commonwealth list under the Dentists Act and the Veterinary Surgeons Act will continue to be so registered.
Schedule 3 provides for repeal of a number of measures relating to Southern Rhodesia which will no longer apply after independence and for the deletion from various measures of certain references to Southern Rhodesia and to matters and persons connected with Southern Rhodesia.
The independence constitution which provides for genuine majority rule has been enacted. Rhodesia has now returned to legal status. It is agreed that elections should be held under the provisions of the new constitution and under our supervision. The basic causes of the conflict in Rhodesia have been removed. With the basic political issues solved, there is no reason for delay.
With the passage of this Bill, the way ahead to independence will be clearly mapped out. The Government have no illusions about the difficulties which lie along the road. The Governor's task is formidable. It is to organise fair elections while supervising a ceasefire. He must ensure impartial administration in a country which has for so long been at war, He must try to create a basis for reconciliation so that independence is not a signal for fresh divisions in the country. His powers and his ability to achieve these aims will rest crucially on the consent and co-operation of the parties and of the people of Rhodesia.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: Regarding the difficulties that the Governor undoubtedly faces, now that he has arrived, is it not a fact that any armed incursion across Rhodesia's borders by the men of the Patriotic Front will constitute not only an illegal act but a direct threat to Her Majesty's Government? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Governor has the power and will be able to deal with it as such?

Sir I. Gilmour: It is true that the Patriotic Front has always contended—rightly, before—that it has been fighting an illegal Government. Any armed force now would be against a legal authority, but I am confident that a final agreement on a ceasefire will shortly be reached, and therefore I trust that my hon. Friend's question will become academic within a matter of days.
It is important to make clear that the sending of the Governor and the passage of the independence Bill are clearly


associated actions. They are part and parcel of an irreversible process towards independence. We have undertaken to discharge our responsibility to bring Rhodesia to legal independence. We have restored legality today. In the next weeks we shall, I am sure, be able to bring Rhodesia to legal independence in conditions which will enjoy wide international support. There can be no question of Britain's taking on an open-ended responsibility. The Governor will be there for only a matter of weeks.
I hope that the Opposition will not complain that we are going about things in the wrong manner. I recall that they had some criticisms of our previous Bill, and I hope that they will now agree that as things turned out we were right on that occasion.
Furthermore, the risks—and I accept that there are risks—must be presented in the context of the alternatives. The Government do not believe that a settlement which will allow Rhodesia to take its rightful place in the international community can be achieved without a British involvement to supervise elections. Had the uncertainty of the past few months been allowed to drag on indefinitely, with continuing infiltration over the border and increasing retaliation against Rhodesia's neighbours, all prospect of a settlement would have been lost. That was the real risk—that all that had been agreed at the conference would slip again from our grasp. There will not be another opportunity if we let this one slip. For 14 years, successive Governments have used their best efforts in trying to solve the problem of Rhodesia. We now have within our grasp a settlement which genuinely meets the requirements of majority rule, which will enable the people of Zimbabwe themselves to decide their future in free elections, and which merits the support of the international community. We hope that the final details of the implementation of a ceasefire will be agreed very shortly and allow us to put the final seal on a settlement. I hope that hon. Members will bear this in mind and consider very carefully the effects of their remarks on these final negotiations.
During the difficult period ahead, the prospect of legal independence and international acceptance at the end of the

day will be the most powerful incentive to all concerned to observe the agreements reached at the constitutional conference, to abide by the Governor's decisions and to accept the results of the elections when they are held. This Bill will be the prize.
In this debate we should look forward, not back. Rhodesia has today returned to legality. Independence will follow within a relatively short time. By passing the Bill, the House will be expressing the British people's desire for reconciliation with—and within—Rhodesia and will be fulfilling its obligation to both parties to the conference who have negotiated with us in good faith an agreed constitution in respect of that independence. Many hon. Members on both sides have shared that aim. Whatever the outcome of the elections which will be held in Rhodesia, I am confident that there will be a general desire in the House and in the country to work with the Government of the new independent Zimbabwe.
I hope, therefore, that this Bill will receive the support of all sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Before I call the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Peter Shore: This is a Bill which, to quote from the opening sentence of the Bill, is designed to
Make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Zimbabwe of fully responsible status as a Republic".
Since 1947, when independence was granted to the Indian sub-continent and Britain voluntarily surrendered that jewel in the crown, numerous Bills conferring independence upon subject terrorities have been presented and discussed in the House of Commons, but none has been preceded by such difficult, dangerous and protracted events as have occurred in the past 14 years in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
The special history of Rhodesia is manifest in two major particulars of the Bill. The Bill contains no settled or predetermined date for the actual granting of independence. This reflects the


simple fact that between the enactment of this measure and the granting of independence there still lies a period of unknown difficulty and hazard of uncertain length. I shall have something further to say at a later stage in our proceedings about that as it affects parliamentary procedures that apply before the making of an Order in Council to appoint an independence day.
Secondly, the Bill contains a series of provisions which have no precedent in other previous independence measures. I refer to the termination of sanctions in clause 1, the amnesty provisions in clause 3, and the regulation of claims against Rhodesia's assets frozen by the United Kingdom Government, which appears in clause 4. All these provisions reflect the troubled history of Rhodesia from 1965 to 1979, the period of UDI and of rebellion against the United Kingdom which the Salisbury Parliament formally resolved to end only last night.
We shall, of course, have something to to say and amendments to move on the various provisions of the Bill, but I can say now, in response to the Lord Privy Seal's implicit plea, that the Bill and the granting of independence in it constitute an occasion which we welcome, to which we have looked forward for many years, and which successive Governments since 1964 have worked hard to achieve. If, as we devoutly hope, all goes well between today's proceedings and the post-election independence day, there will be delight and relief on both sides of the House and in the country, too.
We have had some disagreements with the Government on the handling and timing of events in the period since the Lusaka conference. But the area of agreement between us and through the greater part of the House has been very wide. In July we stated our basic position. We wanted and pressed then for a new initiative at Lusaka designed to secure a new constitution, political agreement between the contending parties, support from the international community for a resulting settlement, a ceasefire and a new election.
Since Lusaka these have clearly been the Government's objectives, too. In the 14 weeks of difficult negotiations at Lancaster House they have come within an ace of agreement. As I am sure the

Government will acknowledge, many have contributed to what has already been achieved. The Commonwealth Secretariat and the front-line Presidents have given continued assistance, and there has been a remarkable willingness—and I say this because I am fully aware of the bitterness of the civil war—to compromise by the leaders of the parties to the conflict. I include the substantial concessions made by Bishop Muzorewa and his delegation, as well as those made by Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe. Now we rely upon them to make the final effort to agree the ceasefire and to seal the whole settlement. Let this be done soon.
The Governor, Lord Soames, now in Salisbury, has a task of formidable difficulty in any event without the extra hazard that will inevitably exist before the ceasefire is announced. We wish him success, not just for his own sake but for the sake of Zimbabwe and of this country.
This is an occasion not only for scrutiny and analysis of the Bill, which was presented to us with such commendable clarity by the Lord Privy Seal, but for some reflection on the whole chapter of Rhodesian history which this Bill is about to bring to an end.
Reflecting on the past 15 years, it is natural that we should ask ourselves why it has proved to be so difficult to achieve acceptable independence for the territory of Rhodesia. I can think of two obvious reasons. First, unlike other British colonial territories, with the partial exception of Kenya, Rhodesia, in the period of decolonisation, had already attracted substantial British settlement. Whereas independence in most other colonial territories had direct implications only for those British subjects who manned the State apparatus—the judiciary, the civil authority, the armed forces and the police—and who, for the most part, expected to return to this country at the end of their working lives, in Rhodesia farming, commerce and a small but rapidly developing manufacturing sector were in the hands of settlers whose permanent home was Rhodesia, where they had sunk their roots.
The second reason, surely, goes back to 1923, when, unlike other British colonies, Rhodesia was granted virtual autonomy, a position very close to that


of the old dominions, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. It is important sometimes that other countries and critics of Britain should understand that British authority did not run in Rhodesia after 1923 in anything like the same way as it did in other British colonial and Imperial territories.
When, therefore, the winds of change began to sweep through Africa in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, those who held power in Salisbury had a substantial interest, a substantial European minority community and an effectively independent State apparatus with which to withstand, at least temporarily, the momentum and the forces for change. It is this that encouraged and enabled Mr. Ian Smith to defy the United Kingdom Government and to declare UDI in 1965.
Looking back over the years that have followed, one is struck by the tragedy of it all. Successive British Governments tried to reach an accommodation with the Salisbury regime that would have allowed it a more gradual transition to political equality than, in the event, this year it has been forced to concede. For nearly 14 years, certainly for the first 12, all proposals were rejected. Those who held authority in Salisbury were driven to reject the political heritage of their own nation, to renounce and deny that commitment to universal suffrage that has been the leading achievement of British political democracy for the past 100 years.
It is difficult, so close to these events, to see them in perspective. It is particularly difficult, given the savagery and the butchery of the civil war, to judge the role of the Patriotic Front. But it is fair and right to point out that, for the first seven years of Mr. Smith's regime, armed resistance was negligible. It was only his continued intransigence, the failure to offer even the glimmer of light that political progress might be made, and the endless insistence that black majority rule could not be contemplated, first for a century, then in the course of his lifetime, that hardened the will of his opponents. It was, of course, the collapse of the Portuguese empire in 1974, above all in neighbouring Mozambique, that opened up to his African opponents the possiblity of sustained guerrilla warfare.
There are lessons to be learnt from these events. In our time, European minorities cannot impose their will on black majorities. That is a lesson that has implications for the whole of Southern Africa. It is, indeed, one of the ironies of politics in Southern Africa that the European minorities are faced by opponents whose leaders derive so much support from the strong political ideas that Europeans themselves have exported to the rest of the world.
National independence, political equality and universal suffrage—these are the major political doctrines of democracy in the West. The irony is that it is the Europeans in Southern Africa who feel impelled to reject them while the African majority strive, however imperfectly, to achieve them.
I turn now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, directly, but briefly, to the clauses in the Bill—

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman did not quite say, but gave the impression, that he was approving a view widely held that it was the Patriotic Front that had created the conditions under which we are now moving to independence. Would he concede that it was the very radical, in some ways pro-Soviet, views of the Patriotic Front that drove men such as Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sit hole to make terms with the whites in an attempt to preserve Western democratic values to which they were attached?

Mr Shore: I certainly would not award the laurels to any particular African grouping in Rhodesia at the present time. My real point was a different one. In their different ways, Bishop Muzorewa and his ANC and the Patriotic Front have contributed to the change inside Rhodesia that has defeated what was clearly white minority rule and has brought about the change that, in the end, will establish effective black majority rule in that country.

Mr. Jay: While my right hon. Friend is rightly voicing general reflections, will he also agree that the story of the last six months is a real success for the Commonwealth? The Lusaka conference was the decisive turning point, and a number of other Commonwealth countries have given considerable help.

Mr. Shore: I did refer to the role of the Commonwealth Secretariat. But my right hon. Friend is right that the collective role of the Commonwealth at Lusaka was absolutely essential. It was a kind of launching pad for the success of the whole enterprise.
I want to turn briefly to the clauses in the Bill. Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill since it gives power to confer independence on the new republic of Zimbabwe. Of course, that power could have been exercised at any time in recent years. But independence has been rightly withheld because successive British Governments have insisted that certainprinciples—the six principles—should be met before independence was granted. Now that the new constitution has been agreed—a constitution that genuinely transfers power to the majority of the people—white minority rule has been brought to an end. But there remains, as we know, a crucial requirement that has to be met. Free and fair elections have still to be held to legitimise the new Government of Zimbabwe.
In all our minds, the question today is whether the conditions for holding free and fair elections can be secured. In recent days, we have concentrated heavily, and properly, on the need for an effective ceasefire. People must not be coerced into voting. Until and unless armed men are brought into their camps and bases and their movements are then effectively monitored, it will be virtually impossible to have free and fair elections. But that is only one condition that has to be met. No less important will be the arrangements made to give equality of treatment or access to the rival contenders for political power. It is extremely important that the media, and most important the radio, should be impartially controlled and made equally available to the political groupings from now until polling day. I hope that we do not merely export our ghastly practice of party political sharing of time. I mean a genuine sharing of control. I am sure that the BBC would be of considerable assistance to the radio authorities in Salisbury.
It is crucially important, too, that the arrangements for voting should be administered by impartial and competent authorities. I know that this is the

intention. There should be no doubt in the minds of the still inexperienced voters of Rhodesia that the ballot is indeed secret, not only at the time the vote is cast but afterwards.
The Governor will have many important matters to decide and agree to in respect of the elections, but none of us can say at this stage that the conditions for free and fair elections will, in the event, be achieved. We devoutly hope so, but we cannot just assume it. That is why we do not think that it is good enough for the Government in clause 1 to have the power irrespective of events that take place between now and polling day—which will obviously be difficult and important—and without any provision to report to the House, simply to declare independence through the procedures embodied in subsection (3). After all these years, and with such a crucial period lying immediately ahead, the House cannot from tonight wash its hands of Rhodesian affairs.
Clause 2 was explained so lucidly by the Lord Privy Seal that I shall not comment on it but will leave that to my hon. Friends. I believe that the Government are right to enact, particularly in clause 3, a wide-ranging amnesty in respect of events inside Rhodesia since UDI. I stress "inside Rhodesia" because I do not believe that an amnesty should embrace those in the United Kingdom who have broken United Kingdom law, including that relating to sanctions.
If a new chapter is to be opened on polling day plus one, there must be reconciliation, and I do not believe that reconciliation would be possible if unlawful and criminal acts committed during the period of UDI were to be the subject of proceedings in United Kingdom courts.
I remember well the tonic effect of a broadly similar decision in India on the eve of the independence discussions in 1946 when those who had been lured and deceived into joining the Indian national army under Japanese control were brought to trial but were pardoned by the Viceroy. No one can measure the effects of that decision, but I believe that it was wholly helpful in creating a new and more hopeful climate in India at that time. I hope that the effect of the amnesty provided for in the Bill and the further amnesty to be granted by the


Governor will be as helpful in Zimbabwe.
I have only one more comment on the clauses. I am glad that the Commonwealth option for Zimbabwe is maintained in clause 5. It is, of course, a matter for the new Zimbabwe Government to decide, but it may be that, like a number of their neighbour States, they will find it beneficial to join the Commonwealth association.
I conclude by saying that my hon. Friends and I hope that within the next three months we shall be able to support the conferring of independence upon Zimbabwe, that a properly elected Government will then be in power in Salisbury, that the peace established in the ceasefire will continue and grow stronger and that Rhodesia and her neighbouring States will be able to look forward to a period of sustained peace and increasing prosperity.

Mr. David Price: Like the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Government on introducing it. At the time of UDI we would have found it almost inconceivable to imagine that on the Second Reading of a Bill to confer independence on a new Zimbabwe, we should have such a small attendance and that the Bill should be so uncontroversial. That is a measure of my right hon. Friend's success.
The Government are doing precisely what some of us have wished them to do and it would be churlish of me not to congratulate them. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and I wrote a letter to The Times on 28 July last year setting out a number of proposals that accord closely with what the Government have done in their peace-making at Lancaster House and have incorporated in the Bill. We recommended that Mr. Ian Smith should
be invited to end 'UDI' and to return to his former loyalty to his Sovereign.
We also recommended
That a High Commissioner be sent out to be the head of government in Rhodesia".
I do not quarrel with the description "Governor" rather than High Commissioner. We also suggested that the

Rhodesian armed forces should return to their former loyalties. I assume that from today the Salisbury forces have done just that. We hope that the Patriotic Front forces will do the same.
My hon. Friend and I said in our letter that
the economic sanctions would cease automatically because Rhodesia would no longer be in rebellion against the Crown.
That has happened since last night. We added:
That the timetable of the internal settlement would be maintained but the arrangements for the elections would come under the High Commissioner and…would be properly supervised.
Those are essential points in the Lancaster House agreement. We recommended:
That an amnesty be offered to all".
That is in line with clause 5 of the Bill. We said that
on the establishment of the new government after the general election the High Commissioner would return home immediately, his mission having been fulfilled.
I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that Lord Soames, whom we wish well, will return as soon as the elections are over, his mission having been fulfilled.
It is not often that two Opposition Back Benchers—as my hon. Friend and I were when we wrote our letter—can put forward proposals and find that they are implemented in precise detail by an incoming Government. I congratulate my right hon. Friends.
Our concluding remarks in the letter were:
The choice of High Commissioner would be vital. We would propose that he should be a very senior and experienced statesman rather than a soldier.
I congratulate the Government on their choice.
As an ordinary, humble Back Bencher, albeit at present on the Government side, I do not often find myself in such total accord with the Government of the day. I hope that that happy relationship will continue throughout this Parliament.

Mr. David Winnick: In ordinary circumstances, the Bill would be widely welcomed by both sides of the House, but in view of the absence of a ceasefire, at least at the moment, it is


understandable that there remains the widest concern in the country and, I believe, in the House about Britain's role in Rhodesia.
Last Sunday's raids, which should not be overlooked in our debate, showed the attitude of the military and political authorities in Salisbury. Those raids against Zambia could have resulted in the Lancaster House talks being wrecked, and they were the height of irresponsibility.
With the exception of one or two Conservative Members, no one would deny that UDI was a senseless folly. The Rhodesian Front leadership is responsible for the civil war. I understand from the press that when Mr. Smith was here recently there were references to his being a wise leader. He was patted on the shoulder and called "Good old Smithy". But it was Smith and his cronies in the leadership of the Rhodesian Front who ensured the bloody civil war.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) rightly said that there was no bloodshed in the first six or seven years after UDI. It was when the blacks, despite all their tribal and political differences, recognised that Smith would never concede genuine majority rule that armed force started. The result has been, as it is in any civil war, bloodshed, massacres and actions that no one wishes to justify.
The Rhodesian Front leadership is also responsible for deceiving the European community in Rhodesia, which was led to believe that the tide of post-war history could be reversed.
But what was the attitude of the blacks in Rhodesia? Leaving aside South Africa, they could see, certainly where previous British colonies were concerned, that Africans were getting their independence. However, the Rhodesian Front said, in effect, "Not only are we determined to retain white supremacy; we will ensure that it is strengthened". Some hon. Members will remember the election that gave the Rhodesian Front victory in December 1962, three years before UDI. The responsibility for the civil war is clear in the minds of most.
I must say, though it may be somewhat controversial, that the responsibility for the continuation of UDI rests to a certain extent with Conservative

Members. Following the declaration of UDI, a number of Conservative Members have given aid and comfort to the Rhodesian Front and to those who were in rebellion against the Crown. Some Tory Members voted against sanctions. They visited South Africa and Rhodesia and gave the impression that the majority of British people were behind UDI. Tory Members led certain politicians in Salisbury to believe that if a Tory Government were elected it would mean that UDI—in one form or another—would be recognised by the United Kingdom. They bear a heavy responsibility. They are, in some respects, also responsible for the continuation of the war and the bloodletting in Rhodesia.
That is the background to the debate. What now? The greatest danger for Britain is if Lord Soames is installed, as he is, and no ceasefire takes place. The impression has been given that a ceasefire will be agreed, probably by the end of this week. We all hope for that. We all hope that there will be a permanent ceasefire and that the bloodshed will come to an end. If, by some mischance, there is no ceasefire, and if, because of certain events that could possibly take place, agreement is not reached at Lancaster House, we will be holding the responsibility without the power. It is understandable that concern should be expressed at having a British Governor in Rhodesia who holds responsibility in so many ways and yet the fighting continues.
It is important to bear in mind that the military leaders in Rhodesia—those who were responsible for the raids last Sunday—have always backed UDI. They have never expressed the slightest wish to dissociate themselves from the happenings of November 1965. That is the current position in Salisbury.
If a ceasefire is agreed, as we all hope, there still remains much danger, and the greatest danger is if the ceasefire does not hold. Incidents could be staged which would result in the ceasefire being broken, and the British Governor and the British troops in Rhodesia could be involved in a mini-Vietnam. That danger was referred to in previous debate. If the ceasefire is broken and the British troops are in Rhodesia—with South African troops and police possibly being involved—we could find ourselves in the


most difficult of all possible positions. Some hon. Members may say that that is not likely to occur, and that may be true.
No one wishes anything but a permanent end to the conflict in Rhodesia. Following UDI, we argued that there should be genuine majority rule and a return to legality. It is only right and proper that those who have such concern, and undoubtedly such concern exists within Britain, should express that concern today in the debate. The Rhodesian situation following UDI has been a sorry one. We had hoped that, at the end of the war, decolonisation would take place without too much difficulty. That was far from the position in Rhodesia.
I end my speech on a more optimistic note. I hope that there will be, by the end of the week, a ceasefire and that that ceasefire will hold. If British troops are sent to Rhodesia, I hope that, once the elections are completed, we will withdraw from the new independent country as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If the new arrangements in Rhodesia are to succeed, it will be because they are informed by a spirit antithetical to that which animated the peevish speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I have great hope and confidence that they will be so informed.
At this stage of the proceedings I have little to say. The first thing that I want to say is that I regret the change of name. Apparently it has been agreed by all parties, and so it will take place. In considering Rhodesia, with its splendid towns, its industries, its commerce, its agriculture, which is the best in the whole of Africa, and the relations between its different communities, also the best in the whole of Africa, we are bound to reflect that it was only in 1890 that a party of British people planted the Union Jack on land that is now Cecil Square, Salisbury. All of what followed is owed to Cecil Rhodes and to his countrymen. It is a strange ingratitude that we join today in wiping off the map the name of one of the greatest, and certainly the most devoted, of our sons. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) would, of course, find that funny. That is why he and I disagree on so many matters.
I profoundly hope that all goes well in Rhodesia. A great deal of value has been attached to what has been called international acceptance of the arrangements, which may not be without its significance. But what really matters is whether the arrangements will work in Rhodesia. More attention, on all sides, should have been given to that issue.
I gravely doubt whether those who have been fighting against the present rule of Rhodesia—the Patriotic Front, Russia, East Germany and Cuba—are animated by a devotion to universal adult suffrage. I should like to think so, but I do not. I doubt greatly whether the Westminster system of universal adult suffrage will work anywhere in Africa in this generation. One day it may, but it is not working anywhere in Africa at present. The faith that has been demonstrated by so many in recent months, that Rhodesia will be the one shining exception, is a faith that slightly worries me.
Nevertheless, because of the unusually favourable conditions in Rhodesia—its maturity, the moderation of its communities and the excellent relations between those of different races which have persisted since 1923–my feeling is that the bargain and arrangement that have been made will work long enough for the people of Rhodesia to evolve their own, rather different, prescription for self-government.
This is not the time for long speeches. I bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying that in my opinion British Governments have been wrong all the way along. Rhodesia should have been given its independence on the break-up of the federation in 1964 on the 1961 constitution. Nkomo told me three or four years after UDI that he would have been happy to accept that as the basis of Rhodesian independence.
Rhodesia did what no other British territory ever did and what no British Government ever did: it evolved a multiracial society. There was a single common roll for all electors, with qualifications. After all, that is the system that we operated for about 750 years. It was in 1951 that we reached flat universal adult suffrage, and, as Harold Macmillan once said, it has yet to be seen whether it will work in Britain. The idea that we can impose it by sanctions and other


means on a Central African country with a population that is mainly two generations from the Stone Age is, to my mind, the triumph of hope over experience. We have done it to please a number of African countries that would not touch that system with the end of a 24 ft. long bargepole.
I congratulate my right hon. Friends. They took over a situation that had been bedevilled by no fewer than four preceding Administrations, two from each side of the House. They had to untie that knot. They have done it with great skill. In spite of the attitude that I have taken all the way through of believing that we were wrong and that Rhodesians, both black and white, had a sounder instinct for the pace at which they should move forward, and in spite of all the dangers, I still think that the proposal will work. It is a devil of a risk. We have gone to the very edge of the ability to hold fair elections. We have allowed the Patriotic Front to run it along a bit too long. However, I think that it will work. Somewhat reluctantly, and against all my past, I support the proposals in the Bill and I shall support the Bill tonight.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I begin my remarks by quoting a letter that appeared in The Times this morning. I am rather surprised that no one has referred to it. In many respects Lord Caradon's letter deserves being read into the record in its entirety. He wrote:
I remember the story I heard years ago in Nigeria about the Governor's visit to a remote Nigerian town. The banners were out to welcome him. The first said God save the Queen. Farther along, the second said God bless the Governor. Farther on, the third said God help the District Officer.
Now in Rhodesia, if they hang out the banners to welcome Lord Soames, they might well be:
God save the Queen
God bless the Foreign Minister
God help the Governor.
I suggest that there are too many wise guys telling the world about the obvious dangers. I trust that there are far more ordinary people wishing the Governor well and praying for his success in the interests of everyone, all Africa most of all.
There are plenty of timid commentators telling us the risks. No one disputes that they are indeed dreadful, but no risk, I feel sure, would have been greater than the risk of doing nothing.

There is a little more, but I think that I have quoted enough. It is a splendid letter. It should be the text of today's debate.
There is a serious risk. That was made clear yesterday when the House heard the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal and questioned him upon it. It could place us in an enormously difficult and dangerous position if Lord Soames's assumption of the governorship before the final ceasefire is tied up proves a mistake and things go wrong. Having thought hard about the issue since the announcement yesterday, my conclusion is that the one thing missing thus far, missing since and including UDI in 1965, is the willingness of the British to take a risk. We all know now that there is a risk.
We know why we did nothing when UDI was declared. It was not because we had faith in the swift efficacy of sanctions, which were imposed at the time by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). It was because we were afraid that any attempt to reassert the power of the Crown by military means might fail. Military advice was that if it failed we lacked the follow-up capacity to try again. As a country still posturing its world physical power, we would have been revealed as impotent before the world.
If we accept, as I do and as Liberals do, that Britain has a responsibility in what is still Southern Rhodesia, we must reject, first, the views expressed, as so often cogently and equally so often mistakenly, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). When the House was discussing the enabling measure, the right hon. Gentleman said:
In 1965Southern Rhodesia ceased to be part of Her Majesty's dominions as surely as the American colonies ceased to be part of His Majesty's dominions when that fact was recognised by the Treaty of Paris and the legislation by Parliament that applied the consequences for the law of this country.
I do not accept that for a minute. However, if we face that acceptance we must do so by a real earnest of intention, a real earnest of commitment. That means that we must be willing to repair our unwillingness to take a risk to safeguard a settlement by military means—that was true in 1965–by taking a risk for peace, which is what the Government are now doing.
Whatever the warts that Lord Soames has—I do not think it is entirely without dispute that Lord Soames is in possession of some warts—and whatever his indiscretions in the past, some of which have been revealed on the radio, I wish him well and I pray for his success.
Obviously there is much that I could say in criticism of the content of the agreement, and perhaps in criticism of some of the tactics in the negotiations. However, all that is dwarfed by the fact of an agreement, by the fact of its having been reached, and by the possibility—it is an enormously exciting one—of reconciliation in a situation which entrenched positions and bloody conflict for so many years seemed wholly to exclude.
We talk often enough in the House of racial problems in Britain. We discuss divisions that arise because of disparities of wealth. Our problems in these regards are puny by comparison with those faced by the people of Zimbabwe. When the enabling measure was before the House I said:
It is easier for us to show restraint than it is for those engaged in negotiations Our lives and future are not at stake—as are theirs."—[Official Report, 8 November 1979; Vol. 973, c. 690–700.]
Irrespective of our views of the gentlemen involved in the negotiations and irrespective of what we have said about any one of them in the past, and without prejudice to what we may say about them in future, it is only right on this occasion to salute Mr. Mugabe, Mr. Nkomo, Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Smith. It is a good thing that they have done together. Despite the problems within the Conservative Party, which were reflected to some degree by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), the Government have none the less tenaciously pursued those negotiations to the edge of a conclusion. The Lord Privy Seal stands at the edge and is prepared to take a risk in order to achieve final success.
Do not imagine that it is easy for a Liberal to say such things, because it is not. We have bitterly condemned Government policies since the days of the ill-fated concept of the Central African Federation and we have been equally bitter in our condemnation of Mr. Smith. That is on record. But now there is a

chance to move away from the past and to build something better and fairer. I want to encourage that. We have always been a multi-racial party, whose energies and policies are directed to reforming historical patterns of ownership and wealth in order to achieve a fairer society. In Zimbabwe, it will be enormously more difficult to achieve that.
The Bill takes the issue entirely out of our hands. It will no longer be a matter of decision for Parliament, although it may be a matter for our opinion. However, our responsibility to use our good office—whatever good office we may have—does not end.
Despite our own problems, we should render direct assistance to the front-line States, which, despite enormous and understandable political difficulties, played a most positive part in the negotiations. I would like the Minister, in reply, to indicate his thinking on that point. There is no doubt of the serious economic situation that exists in Zambia and Tanzania in particular.
We should render such assistance as may be necessary to the new republic of Zimbabwe. Although it is difficult to define that assistance in advance, the Government should give some assurances.
As for the white minority, I accept the importance of the proposals concerning citizens contained in the Bill, to which the Lord Privy Seal made particular reference. It is an important element of the agreement to encourage those who are technically advanced to stay. That implies that they will have to accept that the position of privilege that they formerly enjoyed will now be open to democratic reform. Those assurances are important. Perhaps it is not desirable for the Government, at this juncture, to say whether they have had any further thoughts on recompense in the event of unilateral dispossession. I do not say that because it is necessarily moral, but it is a practical point.
We have a clear responsibility to render considerable technical and financial aid to the new republic, when it comes into being.
On the interim arrangements, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has already referred to two important points. First, the role of the


media during the election is very important, because at the moment that media is fully controlled. I would welcome some comment on that.
Secondly, I am sure that the Government will ensure that the amnesty will be brought into effect within the existing borders of Rhodesia. However, I hope that the Government have assurances from the Patriotic Front that prisoners in Mozambique and Zambia will be released as that is now proper and right.
The old imperialist powers in Europe, not surprisingly, have often mishandled the deposition of colonial powers and the transition to independent Administrations. For example, Britain did not leave a structure capable of sustaining democracy effectively in Uganda, and there are many other examples. In Zimbabwe there is a chance to build a just and prosperous society. Zimbabwe is indubitably one of those countries with the greatest potential for prosperity in that part of Africa.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I express happiness—it is the right word—that despite all the harshness and violence of the past we have managed to reach this moment. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, in his very good speech, reflected on the crucial impact of the existence of a substantial minority element in Rhodesia. Algeria provides the only other real African comparison. It is an enormous achievement that we have avoided a repetition of Algeria in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. So far there has been no flood of people out of Rhodesia, and I pray that there will not be such a flood.
As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar also said, Rhodesia's lesson has a clear implication for South Africa.
This is a moment of historical importance, and I hope that the spirit of reconciliation that has made the agreement possible, and in which the Government have played a crucial part, will live on after independence.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: At the beginning of his remarks the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) spoke about the risks involved. I agree that the gravest risk would have been for the Government to do nothing. I tried to make it clear some time ago

that the risk would have been even less had the Government brought themselves to recognise Bishop Muzorewa's Government after they had fulfilled the six principles and been seen to conduct free and fair elections—at least, that was the report of Lord Home and Lord Boyd. The danger would be much less today if the Government had seen fit to do that.
But the hon. Member for Inverness tended to minimise the risks and suggested that they were being exaggerated. It is better to face reality in these debates than to minimise the risks. The House must face the reality during the extremely edgy and dangerous period before the election in Rhodesia. However, like the hon. Member for Inverness, I wish the Governor every good fortune. He will need it. He is an old friend of mine, and in many ways it is an appalling task that he faces. If anyone can pull it off, I am sure that he will.
Of course, I welcome the Bill. I have taken as much interest in this subject, and have been as saddened as any hon. Member, because of my own long connection with Rhodesia. It is a great event that such a Bill should at last be brought before the House. However, it is only the instrument of independence, and much may happen to frustrate its effectiveness before the election takes place. I hope that my right hon. Friend was right when he said that he thought my earlier question during his speech was academic. From what the Patriotic Front is saying, I fear that this will not prove to be the case. A degree of euphoria is understandable both inside and outside the House, but it is better to face reality.
At this stage I simply wish to make two points. This Bill would not be before us today if it were not for the fact that the Salisbury delegation has acceded to every condition of the British proposals and has made every important concession that was required of it. That cannot be said of the Patriotic Front. It has used every trick to delay the negotiations and has used the time gained to infiltrate its men across the borders. That is well known. Indeed, I think that my right hon. Friend has previously referred to it.
The Patriotic Front is still talking of escalating the war, even of murdering the Governor. In part, at least, its leaders are Marxist—armed, financed, trained


and encouraged by the USSR and its surrogates, East Germany and Cuba. I acknowledge what was said about Bishop Muzorewa this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), but if the public were left to judge by what the Opposition said yesterday it might well be led to suppose that they supported the Patriotic Front and no one else—indeed, that they would seek its victory in these elections by any means possible. I hope that that is not their position, but that is certainly the impression that they gave yesterday.
Secondly, will the Government make sure that this House is kept fully informed of events, however dangerous, difficult and unpleasant the report may have to be? We can expect plenty of false information to be disseminated from Salisbury from now on. But we want to know the truth, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure that this House does know the truth.
For example, it is no secret that vast funds and assistance are available from the Communist Powers to the Patriotic Front. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) will find my next remark so funny. I am informed that fly sheets are presently being distributed in Matabeleland which assure the people that if they vote for the Patriotic Front they will immediately be given free land and double wages; that if they do not vote for the Patriotic Front the war will be immediately escalated; and, most sinister of all, that the Patriotic Front will have the means of knowing for whom the people voted anyway, and that the voters will have to take the consequences of that.
Those fly sheets were printed in very large numbers in East Berlin. What is the extent of the Cuban and East German involvement? It should be exposed, and I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that it is. Are we aware of the Patriotic Front's plans to continue the war if it should lose the election, which I personally pray that it will? Do we know of its plans to intimidate? What is the extent of the real authority of the Patriotic Front leaders over their men? Do they control them? Have they any means of communication by which they

can pass on whatever they agree in respect of the ceasefire, if they do agree?
For example, there is now a strong report that many of Mugabe's guerrillas owe allegiance to Tongagara, the self-styled general whose view may not be at all the same. Will he agree? In a number of areas, the leaders inside Rhodesia have really degenerated to the status of war lords, or even bandits. Will they agree? Will they join the ceasefire arrangements?
There is nothing very strange about this sort of doubt. At the end of the last war I had experience of trying to lead guerrillas in Europe to give up their arms. That occurred in Italy, and they were on our side. We were not particularly successful. The task of collecting the armed men of the Patriotic Front at the present time almost defies imagination.
If, as I suspect, every evil trick of intimidation, with the use of naked force, is to be used by the Patriotic Front during the election, we shall want to know about it. We shall want to be reassured as time goes on that the Governor is in a position to deal with this and that if the provisions of the ceasefire are violated the party responsible will be proscribed. I shall be grateful if the Minister can say a word about that when he replies. No one wants the Government's cause to succeed more than I, but it would be folly to go ahead in ignorance of, or deliberately to turn our backs on, the very real risks that attend the Governor's task from now on.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Lord Privy Seal implored us not to look back, yet most of the speeches have done so in varying degrees of nostalgia, ranging from the predictable ones in regard to Cecil Rhodes—in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell)—to the somewhat surprising Palmerstonian overtones from my own Front Bench.
I do not intend to look back, because looking back fills me with considerable sadness. The lost opportunities, the abuse of principle and the evasions of successive Governments about what they did about Rhodesia have led ultimately to thousands of deaths of whites and blacks alike. None of us can look back over the last 14 years with any great pride.
I am concerned about the future. Contrary to the conviction of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I am concerned that we have not yet reached an agreement. The details of the way in which to implement the ceasefire are still outstanding.
I think that yesterday the Lord Privy Seal suggested that some of us ought to think more carefully about what we had said when the previous Bill was before the House and that we would see that we were wrong. All I can say is that there has been a certain change of attitude on behalf of the Government at Lancaster House since then, and I hope that the discussion on the previous Bill was part of the inducement to change that attitude. However, a serious issue still prevails at Lancaster House, and unless it is resolved satisfactorily there will not be an agreement. If there is not an agreement, all the consequences that were foreseen by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday might flow. None of us confidently expects that to happen. The implications seem to be that there will be an agreement, and I accept it on that basis. But an agreement can come about only through a degree of flexibility that allows a reasonable settlement to be reached.
Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield yesterday, the Patriotic Front has not delayed simply in order to have an election in the middle of the rainy season. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not know it, despite his great knowledge of Rhodesia, but the rainy season lasts from January to March. The Patriotic Front has been fighting throughout the last few weeks of the negotiations for a six-month delay before the election. That would take us well outside the rainy season.
What the Patriotic Front has been concerned about is that it should have an adequate chance of forming an election machine and presenting its case to the people of Rhodesia in order to have a free and fair election. I hope that that may yet take place. In doing so, there must be some delay, but that delay is not enough within the context of the timetable ordained by the British Government. Two months may be enough time for the campaigning, but that is two months only after there has been a total resumption of stability within Rhodesia. Therefore,

there is something to be said for reconsidering the time that will elapse until the ceasefire.
The ceasefire raises practical issues that I hope the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Secretary will take into consideration. What has been impressed upon me is that during the first two stages of the negotiations—the independence constitution and the transitional arrangements—the discussion was about issues on which the Patriotic Front could give assurances that if it made an agreement the agreement would carry. On this issue, the Patriotic Front must give assurances that all its troops will honour the proposals that have been agreed at Lancaster House. In doing that, it will be telling its people on the ground that they must put themselves into a position which is admittedly one of insecurity and that they must maintain that position for the period during which the election takes place. Anyone who volunteers to go into that situation must be as sure as can be that his own personal security will be respected.
That, as much as anything, is causing the difficulty in the final stages of the negotiations. It is not something that can be pooh-poohed as being indicative of a desire for delay by the Patriotic Front. Unless the ceasefire carries, there will not be a free and fair election, and the negotiations will fall to bits.
I urge the House—particularly the Government—to consider the serious objections to the suggestion that the ceasefire should take place seven days after the signing of the agreement. It takes a guerrilla about six weeks to walk across Rhodesia in the course of the activities in which he has been engaged for the last seven years. That gives some idea of how long it will take to get people to the rendezvous points where they will be picked up before they go to the assembly points. Seven days is far too inadequate.
Once the people arrive at the rendezvous points, it is not clear how they will make the transition to the new assembly points. Indeed, "assembly point" is a fancy name for what, in effect, will be a detention camp. It will be a temporary structure in an area in which there is no habitation and which is related in no way to the fighting zones. The people will have to remain there for about two


months, with no sure knowledge of what will happen to them in that time. It is true that their leaders and their arms will remain with them in that time, but there is bound to be an air of insecurity about what will happen to them. That is particularly so when the conduct of the existing security forces is taken into account. It is a factor of major concern.
If there is to be equality between the two forces in the period before the election, they must be treated absolutely equally. In relation to representation on the military commissions, they are treated absolutely equally. However, they are not being treated equally on the ground. The Patriotic Front forces are being asked to go into the 15 or 16 assembly zones. Once there, they are supposed to be in the same position as the security forces in barracks. If the Government will give a clear assurance that the security forces will be kept in barracks—as the Patriotic Front forces will be kept in their assembly points—there will be equality. Nevertheless, the Patriotic Front is worried about the way in which the security forces' bases surround the assembly points to which the Patriotic Front has been allocated.
What remains at issue is whether the security forces will be kept in base or will be allowed to come out for specific purposes, which will be decided by the Governor or even by the security forces' commanders. If it is suggested that the security forces should be called out to deal with a breach of the peace by the Patriotic Front forces, there will be a serious risk of inflaming both sides, and that might lead to a resumption of fighting. Therefore, it is vital to have an assurance that the Patriotic Front forces will keep order within their forces. Any of their number who gets out of line will be dealt with by them.
The security forces should be used to keep order within their number. If there is any outburst by their people, they will deal with that. If that course is followed, it is conceivable that this highly difficult and delicate period before the election will pass peacefully. However, if it is intended that the security forces alone will control the Patriotic Front forces, that, clearly, will be unacceptable to the Patriotic Front. I hope that some thought

will be given to that point in the final round of negotiations.
A number of issues in the Bill will be dealt with in Committee. It is strange that after tonight we shall not be consulted again before Rhodesia goes into independence. By allowing the Bill to pass, we have given our blessing to a scheme that will lead allegedly to a free and fair election. Yet we do not know that the election will be free and fair until it has taken place. Therefore, it cannot be said that everything will be carried out according to the intention of the agreement. We can be sure of that only if, after it is all over, some independent people or even some hon. Members from this place can say that, having looked into the matter, they have concluded that the election was free and fair and that the House should give a fair wind to an independence Bill. Something must be done along the lines of the amendments in order to ensure that that takes place.
On the outcome of nationality, why is it necessary for the new Zimbabwe suddenly not to be a member of the Commonwealth? Why can it not be allowed to remain in the Commonwealth unless or until its new Government want to take it out? That happened with Pakistan, South Africa and Ireland. The precedent has been to keep a country in until it decides to opt out. If that were done, the nationality provision would be unnecessary. In relation to the recent independence of some of the West Indian islands, people who were settled here from those islands were stripped of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies and made citizens of the newly independent State. Suddenly, those people found that they had lost their British passports. On the other hand, in the case of Rhodesia, we are taking steps not only to see that citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies retain their citizenship but that the Commonwealth citizen who is patrial at the moment, because he is a Southern Rhodesian citizen, will be allowed to keep his patriality. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain that anomaly.
The patriality provision of the Immigration Act 1971 was the most obnoxious part of that Act. The 50,000 white Rhodesians in Southern Rhodesia


have that patriality only by that provision. They are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, but they are Commonwealth citizens. If Rhodesia becomes independent, I see no reason why the people should not become citizens of the new Zimbabwe and take whatever befalls them. I see no reason why they should be given a further 12 months to decide to opt out when they have had a look at the colour of the new Government. They should be part of the organisation of the new country. There is no reason why this country should take another 50,000white people just because they happen to be white.
We can deal with the areas of difficulty in the amendments. I hope that the negotiations will continue in good spirit and that there will be a happy outcome. Unless there is flexibility on the points that I have raised, I do not see a happy outcome. However, on the overall question of the conduct of the Government in the negotiations, if, at the end of the day, Rhodesia goes into full independence on a free and fair election—whoever wins the election—no one will be happier than I. I have fought the battle for many years for the rights of black people in Rhodesia.
If that day comes, I shall be the first to congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal. My suspicions arise from too many disappointments in the past, not only in this Government but in previous Governments. I still have a lurking suspicion about the agreement on the independence constitution and the transitional arrangements, but I hope that there will be a happy outcome.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that this Bill is not actually about the details of the ceasefire, although, clearly, it is very important to the independence of Southern Rhodesia, which I hope will come about fairly shortly.
I must say that had I been one of the Patriotic Front leaders I should have been far happier to have the Governor in post for a few days before I got there, because I should be worried about returning to Salisbury or to other parts of Rhodesia, given the past. In the same way, I think that that applies to many who have been in Rhodesia throughout the 14 years of UDI.
I look forward to a new question in a Christmas quiz in our newspapers, or by whoever entertains over the Christmas period by asking questions which are virtually impossible to answer, provoked, perhaps, by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who asked whether there had been a precedent for a country joining the Commonwealth after becoming independent. I think that we ought to have a competition to find out how many countries have been colonies which never joined the Commonwealth in the first place. I think that there would be a slightly surprising answer to that. I hope that Rhodesia will follow the precedent suggested by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
This is not the time for euphoria or recrimination. What I should like to do is to mention the names of three people who, generally, are not mentioned when the question of the constitutional conference and the independence constitution are mentioned. One is Reginald Maudling, who, when he was Shadow spokesman for foreign affairs, helped to keep the relatively bipartisan approach that we had when I became a Member of this House. I think that the way in which the present Shadow foreign affairs spokesman has spoken today is equally responsible. I think, too, that the House has a great deal of which to be proud in the way in which it has avoided fighting as much in this Chamber as has happened in Rhodesia.
Together with Reginald Maudling, I should like to mention John Davies, because when he returned from Rhodesia a couple of years ago he brought a greater understanding of the realities there, which had not been appreciated by some, such as myself, who had not had the opportunity of visiting Rhodesia.
I know that when people have been out to Salisbury they have returned with differing impressions, which is only natural. I think that when John Davies came back the things that he said were important. He put them across in a way which has, I think, had some effect on Conservative policy, and I welcome the effect which I believe that had.
We all make mistakes. Many of the things that I have said about Rhodesia have been proved to be wrong, and I suspect that many of the things that I


say in the future about Rhodesia will be equally wrong. What is worth noting is that the differences of view within people in any party, whether in this country or in Zimbabwe, are important differences to express. I think that the dangers of having a monolithic approach would have made it far less easy to reach the stage that we have now reached, when it is possible that there will be a relatively peaceful transition to independence and a decrease in conflict in Rhodesia in the months ahead.
It is not only in this country, of course, that people have contributed to the present situation. The United States Senate deserves congratulations on drawing back from the brink, where the Americans were in the spring of this year, of forcing the United States Administration to lift sanctions on Rhodesia. I have no doubt whatever that had the United States Administration lifted sanctions the British Government would have done the same. That would have meant not the present position, where perhaps 20,000 lives have been lost during the last 14 years but with the prospect of peace ahead, but that many more lives would have continued to be lost as the civil war continued, as it inevitably would have done if there had not been the Lusaka conference and the opportunity to maintain sanctions until the restoration of legality.
Therefore, we should not think of congratulating only ourselves. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will forgive me if I do not start slinging praise at them. I have no doubt that that will come, and it has already come, from others. It is worth trying to remember that this has been an international problem.
Going back into the past, very briefly, I have no doubt that mistakes were made in 1923 and in 1961. They were certainly made in 1965. In the years since then, perhaps opportunities were missed. What is worth remembering—I do not necessarily claim that this is a majority view—is that until the people of Rhodesia were in a position to solve this problem for themselves—which they were not when there was only minority suffrage, or effectively minority suffrage—and until the chance that Britain had of helping them out of the mess into which they had

slipped in the years between 1923 and 1965, it would have been wrong for Britain to have withdrawn from her position of responsibility, however residual that responsibility may have been at any time during the last 55 years.
I look forward to seeing the first clause of the Bill enacted. The time when the United Kingdom has no more responsibility for the government of Zimbabwe is something for which I have been longing for many years—but not the giving up of that responsibility in any circumstances. I think that the circumstances now are far better than they have been for many years. I am a pessimist. I did not believe that it was possible to resolve the problems of Rhodesia, and I am still not certain that it is. I do not think that it is for us in this House to say who we believe should win, or even to say who we believe will win. I think that we have reached that rather chancy position where a settlement is coming because both sides think that they may win, and that is a useful democratic hope for them to live by. I hope that they will live equally hopefully with the result, whichever way it goes and whatever sorts of coalitions and fragmentations are likely to occur.
Therefore, echoing the words of my right hon. Friend, I say "Look forward", but I also utter the caution "Watch out".

Mr. Frank Hooley: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that this Bill is a heavy gamble. That is not necessarily wrong. In all politics, risks must be taken. I am of the opinion that some of the risks being taken this time are not necessary risks and could have been reduced by a somewhat different attitude in certain respects.
It has fallen to the present Government to introduce two rather strange and controversial independence Bills—the Kiribati Bill, which caused a great deal of bitterness on both sides of the House, and the Bill before us, the Zimbabwe Bill, which has been introduced in the strangest circumstances of any independence Bill since the Second World War. I shall list some of those circumstances, because I want to devote my time not to the past but to the present and the immediate future.
The circumstances are that, first, we have martial law in force in the territory to which we are purporting to give independence—at least, I assume that we have it. If we have not, perhaps the Minister will explain whether the martial law provisions have disappeared with the dissolution of the Muzorewa regime or whether the Governor has inherited them.
This is very important, because under martial law kangaroo courts have been operating and sentencing people to death. If that martial law has disappeared, some sort of proclamation or statement should be made by the Government to indicate clearly that such courts as were operating under martial law now have no validity and no jurisdiction, and that anyone who purports to take action under the martial law is acting illegally and has no authority from the Government. That is an important point.
Secondly, we are purporting to give independence to a country that is in a state of civil war. I have never heard of that proposition coming before this House previously. Until the ceasefire is agreed—it is not yet agreed—the civil war will continue, and we are talking solemnly of independence for a territory for which we have responsibility in which civil war is still raging.
Thirdly, we are giving independence to a country that has no legislature. The legislature has dissolved and vanished. There is a colonial Government, with a Governor with full powers to issue orders, decrees and edicts, but there is no legislature.
We did not recognise the elections held by the Smith-Muzorewa coalition. Neither this Government nor the previous Administration recognised them. We are purporting to pass an independence Bill for a territory that has not held elections to determine the structure and form of its Government.
There is, alas, no accepted national leader in Zimbabwe. That is the peculiar tragedy of that territory. Unlike Zambia, with President Kaunda; Tanzania, with President Nyerere; Ghana, with its former president, Nkruma; Cyprus, with President Makarios; and India, in former times, with Gandhi and Nehru, for some reason there has never emerged a national leader of sufficient stature to command the undoubted allegiance of the majority

population in Rhodesia. That is not the fault of this country or of this House. No leader in Rhodesia has commanded the support of the people as does President Nyerere, or as did the late President Makarios. That is a tragedy for which we are not responsible, but I believe that it will make the future independence and good government of Zimbabwe that much more difficult.
There is also the threat that the territory to which we are granting independence under the Bill is still under the interdict of the international sanctions authorised by the United Nations. The Government may say that sanctions have ceased to exist now that the Governor is there, but sanctions cannot disappear by fiat of the Government. Sanctions were imposed by the international community under the Charter of the United Nations, to which we are a party.
Sanctions continue until the Security Council, in its wisdom, rescinds the resolution under which they were imposed. It is simplistic of the Government to say that sanctions have been removed. I suppose that they will be removed by the United Kingdom, but if we lift sanctions unilaterally we are in breach of our obligations under the United Nations Charter.

Mr. David Price: The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. The resolution of the United Nations imposing sanctions on the then regime in Rhodesia was passed because that regime was illegal. Sanctions were not imposed on the colony of Southern Rhodesia. As a result of measures put through this House and actions taken in Salisbury, that territory has now returned to its former loyalty and there is now no illegal regime in Rhodesia. There is simply the colony of Southern Rhodesia, and there are no United Nations sanctions on that colony.

Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Sanctions were imposed because the Security Council decided that there was a threat to peace in that part of the world. So far as I am aware, that threat is not yet deemed by the United Nations to have ceased to exist. Until such time as the United Nations says that the threat is over, sanctions remain. It cannot be argued, in any circumstances, that we, a single member of the United Nations,


can by our own fiat say that sanctions no longer exist.
We are purporting to give independence to a territory under martial law, which has had no elections, no parliament and no accepted national leader, and which is still under the interdict of the international community. Those facts should cause us to reflect on what we are about to do.
The future obstacles to the successful outcome—I hope that it will be successful—of the process set in train at Lusaka are four. First, there is the issue of free and fair elections. That issue has been spelt out to some extent in the amendments to the Bill which the House will discuss later. I believe that it would have helped to ensure free and fair elections—which the world must acknowledge as free and fair—if the supervisory or peacekeeping forces had been more powerful and more broadly based. If the Governor would like a more powerful monitoring force, will it be within his power to ask for one? Will the Government be disposed to arrange for such a force if they feel that it will assist in securing a satisfactory electoral process in Zimbabwe?
This is important. It will be remembered that in the debate on the Kiribati Bill forceful representations were made by the Opposition that a peacekeeping force was an essential component for success during a transitional period. I believe that the Government have gone some way to accepting that argument. What is now proposed is an advance on the somewhat limited exercise originally envisaged.
However, considering the size of the territory, the general conflict and the numerous private armies, I doubt whether a force of 1,000 men is sufficient. I should like an assurance that if the Governor were to cable London saying that he would find it easier to carry out his duties if he had a stronger force, with a wider composition, the Government would respond rapidly and positively to his request.
The third obstacle to the success of this enterprise is the possibility that the international community—including, perhaps, the Commonwealth, the United

Nations and the Organisation of African Unity—will withhold recognition if it is not satisfied that the elections have been free and fair and conducted reasonably. This House cannot demand that the world grants recognition to a territory on which we have conferred legal independence under our own constitution. If, as a result of events during the next few months, there is any reason that might give rise to the fear by African countries, or by the majority of the United Nations or the Commonwealth, that matters have not been conducted properly in Rhodesia, international recognition will not be granted. Thus, a great deal of progress will have been destroyed. That is an important issue, upon which the House should reflect.
The final obstacle to the success of this enterprise is the attitude of South Africa. We are entitled to ask the Government, once again, whether they have an absolute, unequivocal and unconditional statement from Pretoria that, whatever the outcome of the election and the transitional process, South Africa will not interfere, militarily or politically, in the affairs of an independent Zimbabwe. I am deeply suspicous, and I fear that if the Government who emerge in Zimbabwe are not satisfactory to and do not accord with the political wishes and foreign policy of the South African Government, pressure of one kind or another—military, economic or diplomatic—will be brought to bear to force a different conclusion upon Zimbabwe.
I have no intention of voting against the Bill, but before we enact it we are entitled to ask the Government whether a firm and unqualified assurance has been made by Pretoria. We are entitled to demand that if any attempt is made by the South African Government to interfere with the outcome of what happens in the next few months we shall warn South Africa that the rigour of international sanctions will be imposed against it.
I hope that we are now discussing the end of the long UDI disaster. I hope that the electoral process will prove to be fair and practicable. I hope that at the end of it all there will be a Government who can effectively rule Zimbabwe with the agreement of all its peoples. The risk that we are taking is real. The risk


could, in some respects, have been minimised. However, at this stage I am convinced that it is a risk that the House should take.

Mr. John Farr: I declare an interest in Rhodesia, since I have property there. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on their efforts, which have been so painstaking and which have attracted admiration from both sides of the House. I sincerely congratulate my right hon. and noble Friend on the outcome of his negotiations.
I regret the change of name. I am sorry that the Bill is not called the "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Bill". The Rhodesia that I know is a civilised and highly structured modern society. It is that because of the influence and hard work of Cecil Rhodes, its founder, and of the many generations of Europeans who turned a wilderness of bush covered with jungle elephant tracks into a modern State. It would have been nice to give it a name which recognised that.
I congratulate the Government on bringing an end to sanctions. Sanctions ended with the arrival of the Governor in Rhodesia today. On both sides of the House hon. Members will be relieved to know that his arrival coincided with an end to the laborious charade of annually debating Rhodesian sanctions orders.
Now that sanctions no longer apply, I hope that some of our business men and manufacturers are already flying out to pick up some of the threads of trade which Britain used to monopolise in Rhodesia before the declaration of UDI. Before UDI, British firms were involved in 90 to 95 per cent. of Rhodesia's import and export business. During UDI British manufacturers and British firms recognised the United Nations sanctions and certainly did not overtly trade with Rhodesia. Many other countries did. The streets of Rhodesia are full of goods from Japan, France, and Eastern and other Western. European countries. Many countries have engaged in sanctions busting, and we have a long way to catch up.
I hope that the new Zimbabwe will remain in the Commonwealth. I cannot understand why it is not set out in the

Bill, as it normally is in independence Bills, that Zimbabwe will remain in the Commonwealth unless it decides to opt out. Zimbabwe will be regarded as being ouside the Commonwealth until it makes a formal application to join. Whoever wins the election, we hope that the new and infant Government of Zimbabwe will make an early application to join.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said that he hoped that there would be no South African influence or interference in the affairs of the new Zimbabwe. We echo that wish. Similarly, we do not wish to see any influence over the internal affairs of Zimbabwe from any quarter, whether it is from South Africa, Mozambique or any other frontline States.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the South African Prime Minister has said that South Africa will not tolerate a Marxist Government in Salisbury. He meant the Patriotic Front. He said that he would not accept such a Government even if they were elected. Does the hon. Gentleman condemn that point of view?

Mr. Farr: I certainly condemn any external interference in the affairs of the new Zimbabwe by any country. The sooner threats from South Africa or from any of the front-line States are ended, the sooner we shall have a chance of peaceful coexistence.
I hope that the new Zimbabwe, in or out of the Commonwealth—I hope in—will have a democratic form of government. That would almost be unique in any part of Africa, but let us hope that that happens. I have great hopes for Zimbabwe, because its people have special characteristics. They are not extremists or racists in any way. The European and the African in Rhodesia have always got on together a good deal better than they have elsewhere in Africa. I have great hopes that the new Zimbabwe will remain a country in which democracy flourishes.
It is vital to the stability of the whole of Africa—and certainly to Southern Africa—that the example that we leave behind in Zimbabwe flourishes. Perhaps it will serve to blaze a trail for other countries in that part of the world.
It has been a long and difficult road. A great deal of patience has been shown


by successive Governments. I regret that the new country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as it would have been, was not granted independence at the time that the six principles were known to have been satisfied. Independence is now forthcoming. It is better late than never, and I wish the new Zimbabwe well.

Mr. Frank Dobson: There is a great deal of irony in today's debate, in that the Conservative Party, which has long been associated with promoting colonies and supporting the colonial principle, welcomes the moves to bring the colonial status of Rhodesia to an end, and the Labour Party has expressed many doubts although it has had the historic role of promoting decolonisation.
A further irony is that while some of my hon. Friends who have been most closely associated with the promotion of what they saw to be the interests of the African population in Rhodesia have attacked the policies of successive Governments as being too weak, some Members of the Conservative Party who, over the years, have attempted to promote the interests of the whites in Rhodesia have shown most interest in the future of Rhodesia. Both those groups are clearly more concerned about the future of Rhodesia than is either of the Front Benches. That is probably because, with the close interest in the past and the present in Rhodesia, the two groups that have spent the most time thinking and talking about Rhodesia are well aware of the problems facing that country.
I cannot associate myself with the air of self-congratulation that has characterised some of the speeches today. There is nothing for Britain, or successive British Governments, to be self-congratulatory about when one considers the history of Rhodesia since 1965. Since that time Rhodesia's history has been a national disgrace. Our approach to the problems of Rhodesia over that period has probably lowered our reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world more than any other feature of our foreign policy. We have performed pathetically. We have achieved nothing that we set out to achieve in 1965, and we have been

unable to get the international community to do much better.
I was trying to think of those whose characteristics best exemplified what Britain has done during this 14-year period. Seen through the eyes of a poor inhabitant of Rhodesia today, it might be thought that this country started off in 1965 like Ethelred the Unready and, with the haste of the last few months, has become more like Pontius Pilate than any other figure in world history. There is a clear desire by the Government Front Bench and many on the Opposition Benches to wash their hands of Rhodesia as quickly as possible.
The way that Britain has failed to carry out its intentions and to bring the previous rebel regime to heel is quite disgraceful. It is disgraceful that other major countries, such as the United States of America, the Soviet Union and France, have joined in the international conspiracy to allow Rhodesia to continue on its merry way.
International relations were brought into further disrepute when a group of about 2,000 whites were able to defy the rest of the world. The only reason why that group of people have been able to do that is that the rest of the world—including successive British Governments—has not been serious in its intention to bring the rebellion to an end.
The organisation that has been most successful in bringing Rhodesia to a point where negotiations have been conducted is the Patriotic Front. It was not British sanctions or the international community that brought the white Rhodesians to heel and to the conference table. The armies of the Patriotic Front have driven the white Rhodesians into a corner from which they eventually had to turn towards legality and Britain to solve their problems.
Rather than denounce the Governments of Zambia and Mozambique and the people of those territories, we should pay tribute to them for all that they have willingly suffered in the cause of ensuring that the Rhodesian rebellion was brought to an end. I am sure that the House will not agree with that, but I believe that those countries and peoples deserve a great deal of credit.
One reason why the Patriotic Front felt it necessary to accept the onerous


terms of settlement to which it has agreed is that it recognised the pressures that its presence brought upon Mozambique and Zambia and the damage that the Salisbury regime had wreaked on the economy of those countries and their general capacity to survive. It is to the credit of the Patriotic Front that it is now responding to the problems of its hosts so that it can, in a sense, help Rhodesia as well as itself.
I do not look forward with any hope to the settlement that is before the House today. There is much more danger and threat in this settlement than in anything else. We are faced with a settlement that provides a ridiculously short time during which to achieve a real ceasefire and establish the groundwork for free and fair elections.
Anyone who wants to consider and get into perspective the problems that will face Lord Soames—or, indeed, anyone else—when organising free and fair elections in a country that has been torn by civil war for years needs only to consider how long it took the Home Office—and the stumbling way in which it did it—to establish the electoral machinery for a European Assembly. As an outside observer of the process, I thought that it took Whitehall and many town halls a great deal of time to organise it—and that is in a country where we are used to free and fair elections, where we have an electoral register and are used to the electoral process. In Rhodesia they do not have this tradition, and there will be immense problems.
I cannot understand why the Government are unwilling to accept the advice of the Patriotic Front about an independent force that would be capable of securing the situation in Rhodesia should order break down. We have established Lord Soames in that country as the British Governor, but he is in an untenable position. If order breaks down in Rhodesia while he is Governor, there is nothing that he can do without restarting the civil war. He has no independent troops to whom he can turn. There is no body of troops whose activities and presence would be acceptable to both sides. If there is a breakdown of order in Rhodesia, that situation will continue. The Governor will be unable to turn to anyone acceptable to the opposing side to re-establish order.
It was foolish of the British Government not to accept the conditions of the Patriotic Front for an independent force promoted by either the United Nations or the Commonwealth. In the absence of such a force, only a fool would expect a peaceful electoral process in Rhodesia. That may happen, but if it does it will suggest that the people of Rhodesia, and particularly the leadership of the Patriotic Front, have an infinitely greater political maturity than any other people on earth. I hope that that proves to be the case, but I do not think that we can expect it to be so.
There is another objection that I take to the independence as promoted by the British Government. I believe that the constitution which the Patriotic Front has accepted under duress and in the knowledge that its people are being killed—and that brings great pressure to bear on any party in a negotiation—will so limit the intentions and desires of any reasonable party committed to the redistribution of wealth in Rhodesia that those aims will be unworkable, even if that party gets a majority. Therefore, once again Britain is in the wrong. We would have got a better and quicker settlement at Lancaster House had we accepted the eminently reasonable views of the Patriotic Front.
Basically, the future of Rhodesia is grim. Its past and its present have been characterised by strife and civil war. This may come to an end, but, as has happened in Northern Ireland, Rhodesian society will have become accustomed to death and violence. It is extremely difficult for any society that is accustomed to civil war or general mayhem and terrorism—and I regard the activities of the Salisbury Government as terrorism in this case—to draw itself out of the feeling that death and violence are part of the political norm in that society. I believe that it will be a great struggle for the Rhodesians to free themselves from their inheritance of the spavined, lunatic, and lousy incompetence of successive British Governments.
Also, we must remember that the grim State of South Africa will continue to border Rhodesia, whatever the outcome of the ceasefire and whatever the outcome of the elections. That last bastion of racism bodes no good for the people of Rhodesia or the blacks in South Africa


itself. It is to be expected that South Africa will attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the republic of Zimbabwe when it is established, and the South African intentions will not be good.
For that reason, I cannot in any way welcome the settlement that the British Government have put to the House in the past few weeks. In all conscience, I cannot see myself voting for an independence Bill which attempts to launch the benighted people of Rhodesia to independence under such circumstances.
Finally, because I have not developed the esprit de corps which apparently characterises many issues in this House, I repeat that the responsibility for the deaths, injuries and violence that have occurred in Rhodesia since 1965, and the responsibility for any that occur in the future, will lie primarly with the Front Benches on both sides of the House. Successive British Governments have brought us to national disgrace and put the people of Rhodesia in a terrible position. I hope that the Rhodesians will be able to shake themselves free of everything that Britain has imposed on them in the past 14 years. If they do, they will be a credit to humanity, and certainly no one could say that about British Governments in relation to Rhodesia.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: By this stage the whole House might have concluded that this was an occasion for magnanimity, generosity and optimism. Those of us who have tried to express magnanimity and generosity have been in tune with the mood of the House. Therefore, I deplore the remarks of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) because he introduced a note of pessimism. He is entitled to do so, but history will pass judgment on our judgment. It will be the hope of all hon. Members that in the course of time—and it may be a long time—the hon. Member will be proved most devastatingly and hopelessly wrong.

Mr. Dobson: I hope I am.

Mr. Lloyd: If one were to pass general judgments on so many of the important and significant debates on Rhodesia which have taken place in the past 14 years, one of those judgments would be

that possibly both sides of the House—and the House has been fragmented in many ways on this issue—have suffered from stereotyped thinking, arguments and concepts. Labour Members have always talked about "regimes". I noticed that one hon. Member today even talked about "the successor legal regime". That shows how accustomed we have become to using these epithets to reinforce or qualify our judgments.
My purpose this evening is simple. I wish to convey to my right hon. Friend my best wishes for this Bill and for the success of its objectives. I believe that this is an occasion when the House of Commons—possibly not Labour Members, but I invite them to do so—might pay tribute to those who have died in Rhodesia in the service of their beliefs. I do not speak only of those who serve what Labour Members call "the regime". I believe that, of those who died in the service of the so-called regime, many believed—perhaps wrongly in the opinion of some people—that they, too, were in the front line of Western civilisation and its defence. I pay my tribute to them, and I hope that the House will join me in that.
I have always used the word "patriotic" in inverted commas, thereby confessing my own adherence to stereotype, but on this occasion I should like to pay tribute to members of the Patriotic Front who have died as well. Many have died because their view of the future of Rhodesia has been grossly and grotesquely distorted, in my view, by a concept of the world which many outside Rhodesia seek to propagate inside it for their own purposes. That is as far as I shall go.
There has been great tragedy. Men, women and children on both sides have given their lives for their beliefs. Let us now pay our tribute to them, recognising their idealism. While we have argued, they have fought and died for their beliefs. The time has come to say "No more". That is why I pleaded the other day that in the period before the ceasefire became effective some steps should be taken to ensure that those who carried arms should carry them unloaded. Perhaps it was impractical and perhaps feelings were too strong. Perhaps military men on both sides would refuse to take risks of that kind. I can understand that.
But surely the time has now come when an appeal must go forth from this House, this country, from every part of Africa and the civilised world to "stop as soon as you can without being given orders." We should urge both sides to stop immediately because legitimacy has been restored to Rhodesia and hope has been returned. With that prospect, there is now only one course of action for reasonable men, and they must take it.

7 pm

Mr. Robert Hughes: With one or two exceptions, in this evening's debate there is an air of dangerous reality. Listening to some of the speeches, one could imagine that this independence Bill discussion was taking place post-transition period, post-agreement on the ceasefire, and post-elections. The view seems to be taken that it is all over, that all is agreed at Lancaster House, and that everything will be all right on the ground. I hope that people are not in for a rude awakening, although that might very well be the case.
If all goes well—I certainly hope that it does—and the Bill is enacted, there will be rejoicing that power has been transferred to the majority of the people of Zimbabwe. Along with many of my Opposition colleagues, I espoused the cause of freedom for the people of Zimbabwe over many years and I shall certainly be amongst those rejoicing. I accept that for the people of Zimbabwe this marks the end of one period of their history. However, it will begin another, perhaps more difficult, chapter in the history of Zimbabwe.
Decolonisation does not end with the constitutional transfer of power. That is only the starting point. There are problems which abound and which must be resolved. They have, of course, been compounded by the unilateral declaration of independence in the bitter struggle that took place these past 14 years. I wish the people of Zimbabwe well; I wish them peace; I wish them stability. I trust that the opportunities open to them with majority rule will be used to the full benefit of all of them.
If the enactment of this Bill opens the door of hope for the people of Zimbabwe, it closes another door. Several hon. Members have congratulated Government Front-Bench Members. They

have expressed a feeling of euphoria that one of the central issues of our times has been resolved. However, I do not think that we can be blind to the fact that the Bill, when enacted, will mean the end of one of the sorriest and most despicable periods of our history in terms of foreign policy—a period of abject abrogation of our responsibilities to the people of Zimbabwe, first by failing to act immediately upon UDI and then by Government attempts to seek a dishonourable settlement on HMS "Tiger" and HMS "Fearless". I do not absolve any Conservative Government from stricture. The Douglas-Home proposals of 1971 were an attempt to betray the interests of the majority of the people of Zimbabwe. That attempt was blocked by the people of Zimbabwe. When the Pearce Commission visited that country in 1972, it concluded that the Douglas-Home proposals did not meet with the approval of the people of Zimbabwe as a whole. Yet the Conservative Government of the day did nothing to ensure progress in the matter. They failed entirely to compel the illegal Smith regime to transfer power.
Then we had the period when Parliament was deliberately and seriously misled over oil supplies to Rhodesia. History has a way of catching up on us, especially when we are specific. However, I doubt whether at any period in our history there have been such clear-cut examples of Government collusion and deceit to frustrate the will of Parliament to end the illegal Smith regime.
The fact of the matter is—it is as well to record it—that since UDI there has been the loss of thousands of innocent lives because of the failure of successive Governments to accept their responsibilities. We should say quite clearly that it was the abject betrayal of our responsibilities that compelled African nationalists, with a long history of using such constitutional methods as were open to them, to try to obtain majority rule. It was the abject betrayal that compelled those African nationalists to take up arms to fight for their freedom. It is one of the greatest ironies of all time that the Lord Privy Seal should say from the Dispatch Box that we cannot, by proxy, make the decision whether the people of Zimbabwe should or should not be part of the Commonwealth. It is precisely because we tried to take decisions by


proxy for the people of Zimbabwe that we landed at the stage of the bitter struggle of the liberation war.
At present we still hover on the edge of a breakthrough in the Lancaster House discussions. We are in negotiation for a transfer of power at Lancaster House. That is due, in the first and perhaps only instance, to the guerrilla struggle that was pursued over long years.
The fact that we are still in the negotiations after 13 long weeks at Lancaster House reflects great credit on the Patriotic Front, the members of which have conducted themselves in an extremely responsible manner. All that the Salisbury delegation has done is to say "Yes" to every proposal. It was not concerned about what came out of Lancaster House. All it wanted was a method by which it might be legitimised.
The members of the Patriotic Front have been concerned to reach a settlement that would succeed. It would have been quite easy to reach a settlement. If they had said "Yes, yes, yes" to the British proposals at the beginning, we should have had a paper agreement but not necessarily one that would have led to a successful conclusion. The Patriotic Front seeks conditions in a settlement for Zimbabwe that will work on the ground and provide the possibility of a stable future.
We still have a long way to go before final agreement is reached. As I said earlier—I really mean this—I trust that such an agreement will be reached. Neither Members of Parliament nor the members of the Patriotic Front want to see the war continued one day longer than necessary. However, we should not be surprised that there are difficulties in settling the ceasefire deails. All who have followed events in Rhodesia over the years must accept that there was bound to have been a considerable amount of distrust—which persists until this day.
The House will remember that Conservative Members of Parliament declined to support the sanctions order on the previous occasion. The right hon. Lady—now the Prime Minister—sacked her defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). That was not done so much for voting against the sanctions order as for not doing what

Mummy told him. We should remember the attitude of Government supporters in the present great euphoria about the way in which the Government are dealing with this matter.
The Patriotic Front recognised from the beginning that the ceasefire would be extremely difficult to negotiate. When discussions started at Lancaster House, it wanted to discuss the ceasefire proposals first. Its members said "Let us look at the difficult areas first and then we can reach agreement, probably quite quickly, on the transitional arrangements and the constitutional proposals." However, the Patriotic Front was persuaded to accept a different agenda. The difficulties cannot be discounted, even though there were contingent agreements on the transition period and the constitution.
The House is, and has been, in some difficulty over a period of time. In his past two, three or four statements on Lancaster House, the Lord Privy Seal steadfastly refused to answer any point of detail about the conference. He said that he could not answer points of detail because the Government could not conduct negotiations outside Lancaster House across the Floor of the House of Commons. I understand that point of view. I can almost sympathise with it. Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, the House is being asked to approve the final act in the process of conferring legal independence on Zimbabwe—before agreement is reached at Lancaster House, before the transitional period and, indeed, before any election takes place. There is still no agreement, but I hope that there will be one soon.
There are serious problems about the ceasefire details. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) went into those in some detail. I certainly shall not go over them in any great detail in view of that, especially as we may return to some of these points when we deal with the amendments in Committee.
How can we expect the Patriotic Front, after years of fighting, to assemble its supporters at 16 different places where they will remain during the transition and election periods? In the latest proposals, tabled yesterday, two points are made. First, the Government say that they cannot guarantee a ceasefire, that the 1,200 men who will go to Rhodesia are only to monitor what happens, and that it is not


within their capability to guard the forces of either side.
The second proposal is that the Rhodesian security forces will return to the vicinity of their bases—not go back to their bases, but return to the vicinity of their bases. Then, provided that the Patriotic Front does not break the ceasefire, there will be no need for the Governor to deploy those forces.
In those circumstances, we require a great deal of clarification on how there is to be equal treatment. In the early stages of the transition arrangements—I think this was the phrase used—there should be reciprocity of treatment for both sides. There does not seem to be much by way of reciprocity, unless it is some peculiarity of the English language which is yet to be defined. If we are to have a ceasefire, there must be some guarantee that the Rhodesian security forces will be held in check.
There was great euphoria in the House, the country, the world at large and in Rhodesia when agreement was reached on the ceasefire principles. But hardly was the ink dry on the newspapers that were run off the presses in Salisbury than the Rhodesian forces were attacking Zambia and Mozambique again. I understand that the people attacked were assembling to come back into Rhodesia to take part in the elections. They were assembling to return home. Having been bombed before beginning to get back into the country, can we blame them for fearing that they will be bombed when they come back? The Government must tell us more about the way in which people outside Rhodesia are to return to take part in the elections.
As far as I know, there are no postal votes. There may be 250,000 voters in the refugee camps. There are more refugees than that, but about 250,000–I should be glad if the Government could give the figure—would be entitled to vote. If voting is on the list system, 250,000 votes could sway the election in one district or another. Therefore, we need to know that the forces of the Patriotic Front who may still be outside Rhodesia will be allowed to return home to play a proper part in the elections.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend also underestimates the problem of the many thousands of Rhodesian

Africans living in this country who want to take part in the elections. If they want to go back to Rhodesia after the Bill is passed, they will lose their citizenship and will not be able to come back to this country. Therefore, it is not simply a question of going back on holiday to vote. Surely, something should be done about postal voting for those people.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I should be glad of enlightenment. As far as I know, there are no arrangements for people to vote other than in person. I do not think that a postal vote is being organised. I agree that arrangements should be made for people in this country to be able to record their votes. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. Some of those people may not be able to go back, even if they wish to do so, because of different responsibilities, but they will want to play a part in determining the government of their country. That matter will have to be gone into in considerable detail when we discuss the citizenship clause. It would be wrong if people were refused the right to return home to vote on the basis that if they did they would lose any chance of citizenship in this country.
I turn now to the grave risk that the Government are taking in sending the Governor to Zimbabwe at this stage. I need not traverse all the arguments. Control of the Rhodesian security forces seems somewhat vicarious. The Lord Privy Seal would not answer my question yesterday whether the raids into Mozambique and Zambia last Sunday were on the direct orders of General Walls or with his authority and knowledge. If neither of those propositions is correct, does it mean that the Rhodesian security forces are already out of the control of General Walls? If so, how can they be expected to give true allegiance to a newly arrived Governor?
We are still unhappy about the guarantees that there will be no interference by South Africa. I am not satisfied with these arrangements.
The risks of passing the Bill in its totality before an election are great, because it may not stick. As the Bill stands, Parliament will not have an opportunity to discuss whether or not the Order in Council should go ahead. We may be left


with an Order in Council that we either accept or reject. I hope that the Government will assure us that if the arrangements do not stick they will not proceed to grant independence to Zimbabwe under this Act, as it will be, if there are not free and fair elections.
In the various proposals there are arrangements for Commonwealth observers. There is nothing to say how the Commonwealth observers will decide whether the elections have been free and fair or whether they are satisfied with the arrangements. There must be some way—unless they are simply there as window dressing—for the Commonwealth observers to report back to the House that they are satisfied that it will be safe to grant legal independence to Zimbabwe. I hope that there will be free and fair elections. I hope that they will be held, but only time will tell.
Many hon. Members have criticised the negotiating tactics of Lord Carrington. If they work out, no one will be more pleased than I. But if they fail, even at this late stage, I hope that the noble Lord will realise the tremendous responsibility which will have fallen upon us.
I remain optimistic about the future of Zimbabwe. Speaking to those who represent the Patriotic Front, one is amazed at their tolerance. There is no racialism. They are attacking the whites in Rhodesia not because they are whites but because they represent a system of oppression, which they could no longer tolerate, of being driven underground, being put in detention without trial and being condemned for all kinds of acts. As I said, I remain optimistic. I hope that the settlement will work. If we can make progress in Rhodesia—I shall celebrate independence in Zimbabwe—we shall turn our attention to the problems of Namibia and South Africa and shall not rest until they are solved as well.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I should not wish Second Reading of the Bill to pass without adding my support for it and expressing my sincere congratulations, on behalf of my constituents, to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have worked so hard in recent months to bring the settlement to fruition and this legislation before the House.
There can be no doubt that the past decade or more has been a tragic and difficult period for Rhodesia, but the successive apologies which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the attitude of the British Government towards Rhodesia have been a little one-sided. In retrospect, I believe that UDI was a great tragedy for Rhodesia and that much of the blame must rest on those who perpetrated that act.
It is remarkable that the bipartisan approach to Rhodesia and its return to legality subsisted for so long. Despite the fact that there have been factions on the wings of both major political parties in this country who have sought quick solutions of a quite different kind, a broad body of opinion with both major parties supported a policy of sanctions against Rhodesia, condemned the unilateral declaration of independence and sought a peaceful settlement under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
I cannot help but feel that some of the pessimism which attaches to the latest comments and contributions of Labour Members smacks more of sour grapes than of genuine concern. We are all entitled to seek reassurance from the Minister about the various points that concern us.
I am concerned about two matters. Clause 3 provides for a measure of immunity under United Kingdom law for any acts of tort and reparation. But there is concern about the position of individuals in Rhodesia after independence has been granted under the Order in Council and the election has taken place. Will reprisals be taken by the successor regime against individuals whose actions before the declaration of independence were found objectionable?
If, as some hon. Members in the past have asked for and may now even wish, Mr. Smith and Mr. van der Byl are strung up, are we to stand idly by and allow that to happen? Some may feel that they should be brought before courts for acts of immorality. Some might feel that certain leaders of the Patriotic Front deserve the same measure of justice.
However, we are entitled to seek some assurance that, as I hope very much, given the tenor of this settlement and the granting of independence, the past will be


regarded as the past and that the new Zimbabwe will make the best of what it has, looking to the future and not seeking to take reprisals against those who have led different factions in the past. If my hon. Friend the Minister can give any assurance of those matters of concern to many people both in Rhodesia and Britain, it will be most welcome.
My second point concerns the development fund that was spoken of previously when a settlement was sought. Although the Bill in no way refers directly to the fund, I think that the Second Reading debate is the appropriate occasion on which to seek some general reassurance about the position that will apply after the granting of independence.
My major concern at the time when President Carter had a real prospect of obtaining the agreement of Congress to put money into a major international fund to provide for the development of Rhodesia was that it would be used as a means of underwriting the sequestration of white property.
I strongly believe that there is a case for a substantial and generous international development fund for the new Zimbabwe. It is a relatively highly developed country in terms of education, utilities and health. The Africans in Rhodesia enjoy far higher standards than they enjoy in almost any other African country, but there is still much to be done. It is a vast country. If we are to give those Africans who have trained and have developed some livelihood and opportunity for themselves in the tribal trust land areas a greater opportunity for the future, that will cost money. Those of us who have had a historical association with the country have, I believe, an obligation to assist them in their future.
My greatest concern, however, is that, if a fund is set aside to compensate white farmers or white property owners for their loss of property, that will act as an indirect encouragement to a new regime to carry out the sequestration of that property. It is one thing to provide funds to be put into agriculture, new industry and social infrastructure. It is quite another to provide a development fund which will be used as an underwriting agency for the sequestration and confiscation of white property. I urge my right

hon. and hon. Friends to take that point on board and, in so far as they have any influence with the Americans and in any future funding of the development of Zimbabwe, in no way to lend themselves to any fund that will encourage such a trend.
It is perhaps the view of many that Bishop Muzorewa's achievement in the recent elections indicates that he is the hot favourite in any elections that may take place. But history often serves to remind us that the opposite may be true. The elections in Britain after the last war are an example of that. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) quoted another in St. Lucia, where independence granted earlier this year was followed by a major election reversal for the Government of the day, perhaps against expectations.
So it may mean, for all I know, that in Rhodesia the elections will result in a new Government who are not led by Bishop Muzorewa. To my mind, that would be a great disappointment since that man has shown both stability and great promise for his country in the short time that he has led his Government.
My reservations are, therefore, about the possibility of reprisals and about the development fund. Having voiced them, I give the Bill a warm welcome on behalf of my constituents, and certainly on behalf of the many Rhodesians I have met who have visited my constituency and have expressed their grave concern about the continuing lack of a settlement which offers real peace and opportunity.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are to be congratulated. I hope that the Governor will keep up the efforts that he has started today in taking the country to independence, and I hope that the relationship between this country and Rhodesia, which has soured in the last 10 years but which has been a proud one for this country, will continue in a different form which will nevertheless be helpful for the peoples of both countries in the future.

Miss Joan Lestor: A few moments ago an hon. Member paid tribute to all those who have died in Rhodesia, on whichever side, because, he said, they had fought for what they believed in. However, when history looks


back at what has happened in the past 14 years, one of the many questions that will be asked is whether many of those deaths could have been avoided and whether they achieved very much. The question will also arise whether many of the people who fought because they believed that UDI was correct and because they had been told that never in a thousand years would majority rule come to Rhodesia would have done the same had they known that it would arrive in 14 years.
When I was in the Foreign Office—I might say at the height of my political career—I took part in the drawing up of an independence constitution. It was a time of rejoicing and joyousness. The people from the country concerned left the negotiations convinced that whatever happened afterwards they would be left with the basis for proper organisation, independence based on majority rule and the rights of minorities safeguarded. There was no mistrust and suspicion on anybody's part.
One reason why some Conservatives think that we in the Labour Party are being a little churlish—that has been said about some of my hon. Friends today—stems from our attitude to the fact that throughout the negotiations the fears of the Patriotic Front have not been voiced by the Government. The Government have given the impression from the beginning when we had the first Bill that everyone agreed that we were only a short way from total agreement, with only one or two minor matters to be tidied up. That just is not true. It would have been much better if the Government had spelt out the desperate worries of the Patriotic Front about the different points.
I repeat that I am delighted with the negotiations that have taken place and that they have got so far, but I constantly find myself in the position of having to ask "What about this issue or that matter"? This is not a question of being unduly pessimistic or saying that one does not want to see success. What is important, particularly for the future, is that the fears of those people whose lives are at stake should be voiced. Why is there mistrust and suspicion? There are many reasons, apart from the history of Southern Rhodesia.
The visit of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Lusaka for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference was preceded by a statement that gave every indication that the Government were poised to recognise the Muzorewa regime. The right hon. Lady said in the House that there was no need for the fighting to go on one moment longer. I can produce quote after quote referring to fair and free elections in Southern Rhodesia at that time. There is so much evidence that I do not believe it is necessary for me to read long screeds to the House.

Sir Ian Gilmour: If the hon. Lady had been present during the debate in this House before the Lusaka conference and had listened to what the Prime Minister said, she would agree, on reflection, that what she has just said is untrue.

Miss Lestor: It is absolutely true that, as time went on, the position of the Government in relation to the Muzorewa regime changed. The emphasis had changed before the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to Lusaka. Until the agreement at Lusaka to hold the Lancaster House conference, the Patriotic Front was under the distinct impression that we had agreed that the elections were fair and free and that the whole issue was on the point of being settled. There is no way in which that can be denied.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend will recall that in successive statements from the Dispatch Box the Prime Minister said that great progress had been made in Rhodesia as a result of the March 1978 elections and that she doubted whether there was anything left worth fighting for.

Miss Lestor: The Prime Minister said that there was no need for the fighting to go on any longer. In that situation—although no one was more delighted than I that the outcome of Lusaka was the Lancaster House conference—it is understandable that people are suspicious and nervous. That has accounted for the atmosphere in the negotiations.

Mr. Victor Good hew: Mr. Victor Good hew (St. Albans) rose—

Miss Lestor: I shall not give way now. I will do so later if the hon. Gentleman


wishes to intervene. I wish to reiterate one or two points about how people vote and who will vote. This is important if we are to achieve an atmosphere of trust at the time of the elections.
I received a recent parliamentary reply from the Lord Privy Seal on the question of refugees. A day or so later I received a letter, for which I was most grateful, which said
On reflection, I think I should have said a little about the position of the refugees in relation to voting and how they will be resettled.
There is great concern about the fact that all sorts of people, as well as refugees, will have to be accommodated on the question of voting. How will arrangements be made for voting by the guerrillas? There is also the question of people in this country and their part in the voting.
The question has been raised about the breaking of the ceasefire after we understood that it had been accepted by the Muzorewa Government. We were told that raids were taking place on Mozambique and Zambia because guerrillas were infiltrating—I think that was the word—into Rhodesia. If that sort of atmosphere exists, we are a long way from persuading the Patriotic Front that all is well. When all is said and done, the people infiltrating into Rhodesia are infiltrating their own country. It seems emotive language to say that these guerrillas are infiltrating.
We need to know when it will be safe for those who have been conducting a war to return to Rhodesia and to take part in the arrangements for the elections that are about to take place. These matters have caused grave mistrust among the Patriotic Front. I find alarming the fact that the Government do not voice these concerns or explain how the problems are to be overcome. Reference has been made to a statement by South Africa about the consequences if a Marxist Government emerge from the elections in Rhodesia. The word "Marxist" is used loosely in British politics. One has only to say that there are two classes in society and one is labelled a Marxist without being given any further explanation. But that statement has been made, and the Patriotic Front is naturally concerned.
The Patriotic Front fears that if it is regarded as Marxist and if the British Government fail to repudiate the

statement, or fail to say what they will do, there is danger of the Patriotic Front not being allowed to participate in the result of a democratic election. All these matters have to be cleared up.
At what point is Zimbabwe free and independent? It is being returned to legality. But we want to be satisfied that the elections are conducted in circumstances that take into account all the matters I have mentioned. We want to be satisfied of the right to participate for all the groups whose participation is very much in question. We want the elections to be conducted in a way that is fair and free. Only when that point has been satisfied can we say that Zimbabwe is independent and grant independence. If that point is not satisfied and elections have not been fair and free, how can those who feel that they have not been free and fair come back to the British Government saying "It has not happened as you said. Things went drastically wrong"? That question must be answered.

Mr. Goodhew: I want to refer the hon. Lady to 1961, when Sir Edgar Whitehead, as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, as it then was, and part of the federation, produced a constitution that was bound in time to bring the black Africans to power on the basis of their education and their financial situation. Mr. Joshua Nkomo welcomed that proposal with great gratitude and then went off to see Mr. Nkrumah of Ghana. Many other countries had taken an interest in the situation. Mr. Nkomo was told to go back and demand nothing less than "one man, one vote." But if Mr. Nkomo had accepted that 1961 constitution we would not have been in the present situation. There would have been a black African Government long ago. Does not the hon. Lady think that some of her own hon. Friends might have encouraged Mr. Nkomo to listen to hon. Members in this House instead of the people in Africa?

Miss Lestor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not apportioning blame, going back to 1961, for today's situation. I happen to believe that one man and one woman with one vote each is the best possible basis for independence in any country. I do not intend to go back to what Joshua Nkomo was advised long


ago. I am concerned with the here and the now and the situation 14 years after UDI was declared.

Mr. Goodhew: It would have been very different.

Miss Lestor: I want the independence of Zimbabwe to take place. I want the elections to be successful. Like many of my hon. Friends who have played a part in these matters for so long, I am as concerned as anyone that they should succeed. I ask, however, that the Lord Privy Seal should give answers to questions about arrangements on the ceasefire, the return of people to their own country, wherever they may be, the arrangements for voting and the position of South Africa. All these matters have to be cleared up before I can give a welcome to the Bill. Another question that has to be answered is at what point Zimbabwe is independent. Will that be after we are satisfied that elections have been free and fair or immediately they have taken place?

Mr. loan Evans: The long saga of events since 1964 has involved a number of renewals of the sanctions order and various other debates. Those of us who have taken part in those debates are pleased that we have a Bill that we hope will lead to fair and free elections and that for the first time Zimbabwe is to have a Government who truly represent all the people.
It is a little early to pay tribute to any successes, although the Government have played an important part in getting a settlement. I am reminded of the situation in France and its problems with Algeria. The French people returned de Gaulle to power thinking that the situation would not change, but he immediately set about giving independence to Algeria.
I think that the Smith regime was holding out in the hope that a Conservative Government would be returned to power in this country. Some Conservative Members—not a majority—would have liked a settlement with Smith many years ago. They objected to Labour Governments insisting on sanctions and seeking a constitution that would be recognised not enabling Bill was brought forward before

only by the people of Zimbabwe but throughout the world.
It has been worth waiting for this moment. We are to see the election of a Government in Zimbabwe who, unlike the illegal regime that could never find one other Government to recognise it, will be recognised in the Commonwealth and the United Nations.

Mr. Goodhew: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the constitution that was acceptable to Joshua Nkomo in 1961, and which would have given him all he hoped for sooner than he had expected, should have been supported by Labour Members?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is talking about Mr. Nkrumah, who passed away at least 15 years ago. We must recognise that Joshua Nkomo and the other leaders of the Patriotic Front have taken a stand in the belief that certain principles are important. We must pay tribute to those men, who will emerge as leaders of Zimbabwe. Under the Smith regime they spent decades in prison. I believe that their suffering has been made worth while by what has been achieved.
In Opposition, the Conservative Party implied that there would be a sell-out on Rhodesia, but the Heath and Home Governments did not sell out to the illegal regime, and that is to their credit. We have waited 14 years to get the correct decision. Let us make sure that it is right. Do not let us fall at the final hurdle. We must be patient. The Patriotic Front has been fighting for liberty and its leaders are trying to get guarantees of fair and free elections. We have to be patient in discussing the problems.
For years after the war with Japan ended there were still people fighting on the islands in the South Pacific. They had not even heard that the war was over. Of course, communications have improved since then, but those fighting the guerrilla war in Zimbabwe are cut off from the media, and we must allow enough time to ensure that the fighting has stopped.
It is to the credit of the Government that they want a just solution and to allow the people of Zimbabwe to vote in free and fair elections, but do not let us rush it. I did not understand why the


the negotiations had reached a conclusion. Of course, the Government had a problem with some of their Back Benchers on the sanctions order, and that is why the Opposition agreed to the enabling Bill going through.
The Bill before us has been brought forward even though there is still no ceasefire in Zimbabwe. I hope that nothing untoward happens, but for the Governor to go to Salisbury when a civil war is still being fought is fraught with danger.
I hope that we shall guarantee that the various political parties that are to fight the election will have equal access to the broadcasting media. It is vital that justice is not only done but is seen to be done and that political liberty is not only given but is seen to be given. Whatever part may have been played by any person in previous Rhodesian Governments or in the struggle for freedom, all parties must be given equal access to the media.
Why did the illegal regime last for so long? I believe that it was not because economic sanctions were wrong but because they were not applied as they should have been. There are those in this country who have flouted the will of the people as expressed by the House. That is in the past, but we must recognise that the reason why we could not bring the illegal regime back to legality was that the main saboteurs were South Africa and the former Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique.
When Angola and Mozambique became independent, the Rhodesian regime was sustained by South Africa. There have been reports that South African troops have poured over the border into Zimbabwe. We must insist that the South African troops get out of Zimbabwe. We cannot have fair elections unless those troops are withdrawn. We need copper-bottomed guarantees that they are no longer in Zimbabwe.
As I mentioned earlier, it is difficult for the Patriotic Front to meet the conditions of the ceasefire, and further time must be allowed for that to happen. It is all very well to say that it should come to rendezvous points and move to assembly points, but the Patriotic Front is kept in confined areas. We have to give it guarantees that it will not be treated

differently from the existing forces of the Rhodesian regime.
I have certain reservations about giving the Bill a Second Reading, but I hope that all goes well and that before long there will be elections. We must be assured that the elections will be free and fair. It has been a long struggle to ensure that the majority in Rhodesia are able to determine their destiny. I hope that it will not be long before they have real independence and we welcome Rhodesia into the Commonwealth, and that Rhodesia will then play an active part in the United Nations.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: This ought to be a major moment in the parliamentary history of the issues governing Rhodesia. After 14 years, during which passions have raged in the many debates that have taken place in a packed House, we come to the significant moment of bringing Zimbabwe to independence, yet from the beginning of the debate the House has been empty. That is an astonishing comment. Perhaps the House is empty because passions have been spent during the annual debates on sanctions orders. I am trying to claim a personal world record of having wound up more debates on these orders than any Minister in the past 14 years.
The Bill represents an important and major step in the processes that should bring to a conclusion the 14-year saga of Rhodesia. Many of my hon. Friends have been right continually to remind the House that, whatever we may say about the present position, it is sad and tragic that it has been war—the gun and the bomb—that has brought us to the point at which we can look forward to an independent Zimbabwe and freedom for more than 5 million black Africans. Thousands of young people were forced to take to the gun to try to ensure the rights that we have enjoyed for so long.
Anyone who has been involved in the problems of trying to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia should have learnt a degree of humility. Even at this last moment, Ministers must have their fingers crossed. They must be touching wood and devoutly praying—as we all are—that nothing will jeopardise a successful conclusion to the Lancaster House talks, followed by a ceasefire and free and fair


elections that will establish a truly independent Zimbabwe.
The issue has been important and significant for the past 14 years because it has involved the freedom, the rights and the opportunities of more than 5 million black Africans. They have not enjoyed those rights because of the decision made in 1965 by Mr. Smith to declare illegal independence and establish a racial Government, without rights for the majority.
Anyone who has been involved in the Rhodesian problem will know that it has been a major test of the willingness of successive British Governments to stand up for the rights and freedoms of black Africans. African countries in the Commonwealth have considered that a major test. During my travels through Africa, often a long way from Southern Africa and Rhodesia, I have been stopped at airports by journalists and questioned by Ministers in many other parts of Africa about our stand and been made aware of the deep distrust, the sense of suspician and the feeling that we would not live up to the principles which the House had laid down but which successive British Governments had failed to implement.
The achievement of a settlement is one of the great prizes for the freedom of 5 million people and for Britain's relationships with Africa and the Commonwealth. Though many of my hon. Friends have been critical and expressed reservations, we wish and hope that the Bill will lead to an independent Zimbabwe.
Equally, Opposition Members are right to question the position in which the House finds itself in debating the Bill. Hon Member after hon Member has said that it is curious to bring forward a Bill to give independence before a constitutional conference has been completed, before agreements have been reached, before a ceasefire has been achieved and before a transitional process for free and fair elections has taken place. There is no precedent for that.
Rhodesia has presented many unprecedented situations—we understand that—and we are entitled to ask: is it so necessary to do this at this moment? It is regrettable that the Government could not ensure that a consensus would

be achieved in the House. That could still happen if the Government were prepared to listen to some of the propositions that we shall put forward this evening. We find ourselves in an odd position. If we pass the Bill, it will be the final act. There is no other legislative act that will bring Rhodesia to independence. If we pass the Bill, in all its stages, there is only one process left, and that is an Order in Council. If the Bill remains unamended, it will not even be subject to parliamentary approval and debate.
We are right to say—and we shall be saying it in greater detail in Committee—that that is wrong. It is not sensible, and we feel that the House should not be treated in such a way. It is not sensible because, after 14 years of pretending to have power and responsibility over Rhodesia—that has been an illusion—we have assumed proper and full responsibility and power for the government and administration of Rhodesia. We cannot sign off—as we should be doing if the Bill were passed without amendment—and say that there is nothing more for the House to do by way of further legislative acts.
The principle of the Bill is accepted. We wish and hope that the ceasefire will be agreed. That wish is unanimous. We hope that the transitional arrangements will work and will lead to free and fair elections. However, we are entitled to say—as we have been saying during the debate—that there should be one further and final stage before the date of independence is announced. The House should resolve and make that decision itself. It is the fundamental difference remaining between us. We have been put in an almost impossible position because there is no constitutional conference report—althtough there have been a number of documents that one could read to work out the pattern—as there has been for other independence discussions, constitutions and procedures.
I have been involved in no fewer than five sets of independence discussions, admittedly involving mini-States, but the plan was always to bring a constitutional report before the House and then move forward with appropriate legislation. We are reversing that procedure, and that is why extra transitional provisions are needed in the Bill to ensure that


the House does not sign off and wash its hands, legislatively, of the remaining stages of independence.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, there have not yet been free and fair elections. Commonwealth observation will be an intrinsic part of the transitional period. Parliament should have an observer team. There should be a parliamentary Committee there. It seems that everyone else will be observing the elections. The House, which has responsibility for deciding whether the fifth principle has been fully met, should have the opportunity to observe.
The value of the House observing the elections and of having the process of Commonwealth observation is that that would authenticate what took place. If that is done, it will be possible at the end of the transitional period to say "The elections were free and fair. Therefore, we should name independence day." However, if the Bill is enacted unamended, as is proposed, that process will not take place. That means that the House will not have the opportunity to say that the elections were free and fair. In those circumstances, it will not be possible for the House to accept, or otherwise, an order that provides the date of independence.
The Opposition believe that this is the last legislative moment in the whole process. That being so, I must ask certain questions about the interim transitional arrangements. What is the Government's thinking about the length of the transition? There were heated debates when we considered the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. Our arguments were central and germane to the Lancaster House negotiations. The relevance of those arguments to the Bill turns on the appointed day for independence.
Are we talking about two months from today, or from the day when the Governor sets foot on Salisbury soil for the first time? Are we talking about X months after the completion of the discussions? If agreement is reached by the weekend, the ceasefire arrangements are agreed and the Lancaster House conference comes to a successful conclusion, what will be the time scale? I do not seek to pin the Under-Secretary of State down to a minute, an hour or a day; I am merely asking for an idea of the time

scale before we are confronted with the vital issue of the appointed day.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the position of the South African Government, and especially South African troops. At present there are regulars and irregulars inside Rhodesia. As from today, Rhodesia is a Crown colony. That is the position de facto as well as theoretically. What are the Governor's instructions in that regard in the vital weeks ahead?
Once we have approved the Bill, we have finished legislatively. We shall have completed our parliamentary responsibilities. However, I devoutly hope and pray that in the spirit of amity that now exists the Lord Privy Seal, or the Under-Secretary of State, will be able to say that the Government are willing to accept at least one significant change to the Bill to ensure that there will be a final parliamentary legislative change in the form of a debate on one of the orders after free and fair elections have taken place.
In Committee we shall wish to consider two or three major issues that the Bill raises. The Lord Privy Seal had a tough task explaining in layman's language the nationality provisions. My sympathy for him was considerable. Anyone who has wandered into the labyrinth of international law finds that he goes quickly or slightly insane, or loses his way. However, the provisions are profoundly serious. We must bear in mind the nationality problems that surrounded the Kenya Asians and arose also in dealing with a host of other Bills. Many questions remain unanswered about the position of certain groups of citizens within each and every society because of the complications of the relevant provisions. These issues are crucial, and they often emerge two or three years later as major problems to confront various groups in position of certain groups of citizens withdrawn in constitutional and political terms. We need answers that are comprehensible and couched in layman's language.
Who are the exceptional people referred to in schedule 1? There are those who are described in paragraph 3 as "subject to limited exceptions". The Minister should not merely refer to various subsections of nationality law. Who are these people? What sort of persons are we talking about? Are they


white or are they black? Who are those with close connections with Britain who will be able to qualify under the special provisions of the schedule? Obviously we cannot discuss the detail on Second Reading, but it will be helpful if, in general terms, the Under-Secretary of State will allay our worries and concerns about the nationality provisions.
We shall wish to discuss the amnesty provisions. It is not what is in the Bill but what is not in it that is of the greatest concern to my right hon. and hon. Friends. What is the position of sanctions busters who are now under investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions? I understand that clause 3 does not exempt or free British companies, for example, which have deceitfully or cynically evaded or broken sanctions law. I understand that the clause does not extend the amnesty to them.
When the Bill has been enacted, we do not want to have a hole-in-the-corner statement or a written answer by the Attorney-General that indemnifies existing sanctions busters. I am sure that I should not be suspicious, but a few days ago there were hints that a statement would be made. Following that, there were rumours that there would be no statement. The Under-Secretary of State should clarify the issue.
There is a difference in principle between indemnifying individuals in Rhodesia under United Kingdom law—that includes a Governor's order in Rhodesia, applying to both sides, despite their involvement in illegal acts during the past 14 years—and indemnifying firms that have cynically broken United Kingdom laws in the past few years by breaking sanctions. If the slate is wiped clean for the second category, that is very different from taking the same attitude towards and action against those who, as the Opposition understand it, have been involved in activities covered by clause 3. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us clearly and unequivocally the position of those who are suspected of or under investigation for having broken sanctions.
The Bill is about the granting of freedom and independence to over 5 million people, the majority of whom have been deprived of freedom, rights and

opportunities for generations. They have suffered racial and political persecution. Their interests have been the preoccupation of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber since 1965, and even before that. I hope and pray that the Bill will usher in freedom, opportunities and a multi-racial society, a society with complete racial harmony within Rhodesia. I hope that we shall be able to put behind us the past miserable 14 years, during which successive Governments have failed to repay a debt of honour that successive Governments and both parties have accepted.
I hope that we can start talking about Rhodesia without the bitterness and the passions of the past. I hope that we shall no longer have to talk about sanctions, deprivation, persecution, killings, bombings, guerrillas and illegality. I hope that we can concentrate on peaceful development in a land that is capable of offering a prosperous and harmonious society.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and I have been on opposite sides on many occasions when debating Rhodesia. I think that we would both agree that this occasion is a historic and important one for the future of Rhodesia—shortly to be called Zimbabwe. I welcome the general spirit demonstrated during the debate and the desire expressed on all sides to see the Bill succeed, to see Rhodesia proceed as quickly as possible to independence and to see an end to the war.
I have noticed some unwillingness to accept the progress that has recently been made by the Government and by all the parties involved in Rhodesia. During the last six months we have had extensive consultations with representatives from many parts of Africa and the Western world, and, of course, we attended the important Commonwealth conference at Lusaka. We are now in our fourteenth week at Lancaster House, and the constitution, pre-independence arrangements and proposals for a ceasefire have been agreed. Agreement has been reached on all outstanding political issues. All the problems that previously stood in the way of legal independence have now been removed.
Successive Governments have struggled with this problem since the early 1960s. Many Governments, in many parts of the world, urged us, month after month and year after year during the 1960s and 1970s, to exercise our responsibilities towards Rhodesia. The British Government are now prepared to take on those responsibilities, however difficult. Anyone who denies that the task will be difficult is very green indeed. Our desire to exercise those responsibilities has been demonstrated by the arrival in Salisbury this afternoon of Lord Soames as Governor. We have achieved what successive Labour and Conservative Governments failed to achieve for over 14 years. We can now return Rhodesia to legality.
To achieve that stage has required patience in negotiation, boldness, decisiveness and a willingness to take risks. That balance has been demonstrated by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State and by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal during the negotiations of the last three months. The Governor has arrived, and momentum towards a final peace will be maintained. The Governor's presence will help to stabilise the country and normalise relations with neighbouring countries. He will also be able to prepare plans for the implementation of the ceasefire. It is now easier for the Patriotic Front to come in, as it will be reassured by the presence of the Governor and by the fact that the Rhodesian forces have pledged their loyalty and are accountable to the Governor.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Have the Rhodesian forces pledged their loyalty? Have they been asked to take an oath of allegiance?

Mr. Luce: It was agreed at the Lancaster House conference that on the arrival of the Governor all Rhodesian forces would be accountable to him. That is the case as from today.
Whatever we do involves risks and dangers. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) made that point effectively. It would have been more dangerous had we delayed and not sent a Governor. The hon. Member for Inverness quoted from a letter that appeared in The Times of today from Lord Caradon, who wrote:
no risk I feel sure, would have been greater than the risk of doing nothing

That is true, and it is important. If one does not take the plunge or take risks, the chances of progress are that much less.
The introduction of the independence Bill is seen against that background. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal carefully explained the purposes of the Bill, and I shall not labour the points concerning citizenship again, as there will be a debate later during the Committee stage. However, we can now see the basis on which independence will be granted. The constitution provides for genuine majority rule and the country will return to legality through free and fair elections under British supervision. That is our responsibility. There will be a British election commission, British supervisors and Commonwealth as well as British observers.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil wanted to know why the Bill was being introduced now, and as other hon. Members have also raised that question I must comment on it. As the hon. Member said, we face a unique situation and we must demonstrate to the parties concerned in Rhodesia that we will fulfil our obligations. By passing this legislation we shall make that clear to them. We want to show them that we mean business, that we will fulfil our side of the undertaking, and that we wish to maintain the momentum of the last three months. If that momentum is not maintained, the fragility of the exercise will increase.
It is important to give to Rhodesian citizens as much advance warning as possible of the Bill's implications, particularly about the citizenship and amnesty provisions. It is exceedingly important, therefore, to persuade the House to put the Bill on the statute book by Christmas. I am in a dilemma, and my options depend upon the mood of the House. Many wide-ranging points have been raised during the debate, and I therefore suggest that I answer as many as I can, as quickly as possible.
I hope that the House will accept that as there will be a debate in Committee on citizenship I should answer those questions in more detail then, as there are many other points to cover.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why is it necessary to take Zimbabwe out of the


Commonwealth in order to allow it to return?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman raised that question previously, as did several other hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked whether there were any other precedents for a country attaining independence without being a member of the Commonwealth and then applying to join it. The answer is that there are. Precedents have been set in Cyprus, Western Samoa and Bangladesh. The case of Rhodesia will not be unique. However, a salient point made by several hon. Members concerned the question why we could not have made an assumption that Rhodesia—or Zimbabwe, when independence is gained—would wish to be in the Commonwealth, and that it would be for that country to opt out if it so wished.
My right hon. Friend and I would have much preferred that, and we see the force of those arguments. On the other hand, we think that it is wrong to pre-empt the views of the people of Rhodesia and their future leaders who are elected under free and fair elections. Secondly, in order to achieve membership of the Commonwealth, any country must obtain the acceptance of the Commonwealth as a whole, as I am sure the House knows. That has not been obtained. For those two main reasons, it is right that we approach the matter in this way.
I move on to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Inverness and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) about economic assistance. The hon. Member for Inverness asked about economic assistance to neighbouring States, particularly Zambia. As he knows, a great deal of economic assistance is already given to Zambia. I think that he mentioned Tanzania as well. Both countries already receive assistance. I am sure that the whole House would agree that if the fighting comes to an end, as we hope it will shortly, and there is peace and stability in Rhodesia, the prospects for the neighbouring countries to improve their own standards of living and prosperity are much greater.
Even today, on the arrival of the Governor, he has decided to resume the supplies of maize to Zambia. That is another example of the kind of positive

measure that the arrival of the Governor can provide. Of course, it will be for us, in terms of our bilateral relations with countries such as Zambia, to review the situation once the settlement in Rhodesia is completed. As I said, a great deal of assistance is already given to Zambia.
I turn to the question of assistance to Rhodesia. If, after independence, the new Government wish to enter into negotiations with us about the provision of economic assistance, we have already made it plain at Lancaster House, as well as in this House, that we shall consider any requests very carefully. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that such economic assistance cannot be used directly for the provision of compensation for land that is expropriated. Of course, it can be used—we have offered it already—for the purpose of assisting any future Government in Rhodesia in a land resettlement policy. But that is something rather different from providing aid for compensation for expropriated land. I hope that that goes some way towards answering my hon. Friend's point.
Many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), raised the question of the media. The position is quite clear, and we have made it quite clear at Lancaster House. It is the duty of the Governor and the British election commission to ensure that all parties have a fair and equal opportunity and access to the media and that there will have to be editorial balance by the broadcasting authority. The House may like to know that the Governor took with him a special adviser on radio and television matters from the Central Office of Information who will be at his disposal. However, we would also wish to take into account the views that have been expressed in the House with regard to the advice that is available to the Governor in relation to the media.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would it not be equally sensible to have some advice from the BBC, which, after all, has a great fund of knowledge on this matter?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that that is a matter for the Governor. He will now be in a position in which he can make a judgment


on the question whether it might be helpful to have further advice from this country. We certainly take that point on board, and I am sure that the Governor does as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) made an encouraging indication that he felt that if the Government continued on their present course he would be prepared to continue to support them throughout this Parliament. We are most grateful to him for that offer.

Mr. David Price: It was qualified.

Mr. Luce: It was qualified. I should like to reassure him on the point that he raised about the procedure for the Governor's departure. We have been rather preoccupied with questions arising from the Governor's arrival. However, the Governor will depart on the day of independence. By that I mean that elections will take place. Arrangements will then have to be made for the election of a Senate, and arising from that there will have to be the election of a president. At that stage, after the formation of a Government and the election of a president, the Governor will be able to hand over and independence will take place. I hope that that clarifies that point.
Many hon. Members raised the questions about the ceasefire, including the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). Without going into the details of the discussions at Lancaster House, I think that it will suffice to say that the success of this whole exercise—the ceasefire and the pre-independence arrangements—dependson the will of all the parties to fulfil the Lancaster House agreement. If that will is not maintained—although I have every faith in its being maintained—whatever party infringes that agreement must be held accountable for so doing. At the end of the day, this exercise will succeed only if that will is maintained until independence day.
A number of questions were posed about the problem relating to the assembly points for the Patriotic Front. I do not want to go into too much detail about that, because it is still being discussed at Lancaster House and we have put forward the detailed implementation of our

proposals. However, I should like to take up one point raised by the hon. Member for York, who suggested that the assembly points would be detention camps. That is very far from the truth and very far from the Government's intention.
The whole purpose of this exercise is to give a greater degree of stability and security during the course of the ceasefire. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, these assembly points, which will be located in various parts of Rhodesia, will have their own arms and commanders. They will be well distanced from Rhodesian force bases and company locations. They will not be adjacent to them. Of course, there will be monitors under British command who will be available at the assembly points. I appreciate that there is anxiety on all sides, but I hope that the House will agree that our proposals go a long way towards allaying those fears.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If there is some small outbreak of disorder—for example, if some of the Patriotic Front troops get drunk, or if there is an incident—who will put it down? Will it be the other Patriotic Front forces or will it be the security forces?

Mr. Luce: We discussed this issue many times before during the proceedings on the Southern Rhodesia Bill. At the end of the day, all the forces are responsible to the Governor. As we have already explained many times, the civil police will have the primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. It will be their job primarily to deal with such incidents. At the end of the day, both the Patriotic Front and the Rhodesian security forces are at the disposal of the Governor. In addition, of course, the ceasefire commission and the monitors will deal with incidents as and when they arise.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Are there not two matters that are important in this regard? First, the assembly points are around the periphery of Rhodesia, whereas a great deal of Patriotic Front support is in the central area. Therefore, the people are being asked to move out from their areas of strength. Secondly, by virtue of being within the camps, the people are in fixed locations, whereas the forces of the existing Administration will


remain mobile. Surely, those two matters are of some concern to the Patriotic Front.

Mr. Luce: With regard to the location of the assembly points, the difficulty—as it always is with discussions in the House—is that, while it is important to have as much information as possible, the final details will be discussed between the parties at Lancaster House. We have made clear in our detailed proposals that there will be a process of reciprocal disengagement. All the forces will withdraw to their respective locations. The final details of those proposals are in the hands of the Patriotic Front. We hope that it will accept the reassurances that we have made about such matters as the hon. Gentleman has raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) raised an important point about keeping the House informed of developments in Rhodesia over the coming weeks. I give him an absolute assurance that we will do our best to keep the House informed at every stage when we believe that there has been an important development about which the House has a right to know.
A number of comments were made about the amnesty proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and others. The proposals in clause 3 of the Bill deal with an amnesty in United Kingdom law. The Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 enables the British Governor in Rhodesia to deal with an amnesty within Rhodesia itself. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State has promised that he will shortly make a statement about the proposals to deal with an amnesty in Rhodesia. It can be dealt with by means of an ordinance in Rhodesia. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point. It would become law during the pre-independence period and after independence.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) asked many questions, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not answer them all. There was an exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh about the responsibility for ending sanctions. Successive Labour and Conservative Governments have made clear that the imposition of sanctions depended on whether or

not legality existed in Rhodesia. As we have now proceeded to legality as from today, there is no justification, in our view, for the continuation of sanctions. Against that background, our permanent representative at the United Nations has informed the President of the Security Council that we are lifting sanctions from today.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Now that sanctions are lifted, what happens if, after the elections, the Rhodesian security forces do not like the elected Government and a coup takes place? How will the Government reimpose sanctions?

Mr Luce: There are so many "ifs" in life that we could go on for ever anticipating a situation. We are concerned that all the requirements for which we have been asking for years and years—provision of a constitution and for genuine majority rule, adequate arrangements agreed with all the parties to lead to free and fair elections, and then independence—will be agreed at Lancaster House. It is that that concerns us and it is that that has led us to send a Governor to lead Rhodesia to a situation of legality.
I am trying to gauge the view of the House on the question whether I should go on answering points. I shall briefly take up two or three more points and then I shall seek to wind up.
The hon. Member for Heeley asked about the size of the monitoring force. The House will be aware that many discussions have been held on the matter.

Mr. Rowlands: Has the hon. Gentleman finished answering questions about sanctions, or will he deal with the position of those people who face prosecution or who are under investigation for busting sanctions?

Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, that matter will be discussed in the course of the discussion on the amendment on the subject of the amnesty. It is a major issue. My right hon. and noble Friend will make a statement on the wider question of an amnesty and sanctions in due course.
As the House knows, there has been a considerable amount of discussion at Lancaster House about the size of the monitoring force. Our original proposal was for a force of 500 or 600. As a result of discussions at Lancaster House,


we have now agreed that the size of the force should be 1,200. Of course, it is at the discretion of the Governor, if he decides that he needs to increase the force, but in our judgment—and there is a British military adviser there, General Acland, at the Governor's disposal—the size of the force is adequate to deal with the job. We have responded to representations that have been made to us on this subject.
Many hon. Members raised questions about foreign intervention, including the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil. I should like to reiterate a point that has been made already by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. During the pre-independence period and after the presence, therefore, of the Governor in Salisbury, there can be and will be no foreign involvement.
What happens after independence is not something that Great Britain can anticipate or deal with. We could ask ourselves any number of questions as to which country is likely to invade which other country and what we are prepared to do about it. After that, the country is independent and any country that seeks to invade the country of Rhodesia would bear very heavy responsibilities indeed for taking such action. I think that that is as far as I can go on that point.
The martial law courts will be suspended today, on the Governor's arrival. It has been agreed by all the parties at Lancaster House that once the ceasefire has been finally agreed and implemented, martial law will be removed altogether.
The final answer that I should like to give is to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and concerns the timetable, about which there were exchanges earlier. The position is still as I described previously. That is that once the ceasefire is implemented—by that, I do not mean the time the agreement at Lancaster House is finalised—implemented and brought into force, the period between then and the date of the election will be about two months. As the hon. Gentleman rightly anticipated, I cannot give him a precise date, because we are still reaching final agreement this week at Lancaster House. The position, therefore, remains the same.
I hope that the House will have borne with me as I have been trying to answer

the many questions raised during the debate.
No one should underestimate the importance of this Bill, let alone the other measures that we are taking, to the people of Rhodesia, to the neighbouring countries around Rhodesia, to Britain and to the Western world, because we are here and in our other measures creating conditions that give us a chance to bring peace to that country. I put it no higher than that, but I believe that there is a very good chance indeed of bringing an end to the tragic loss of life, the loss of limbs, and the destruction of property and of a beautiful country. To bring about conditions such as these requires courage and decisiveness. We get nowhere in life unless, occasionally, we take the plunge. As Franklin Roosevelt once said, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. In this situation we must bear that in mind.
Quite apart from creating the right conditions to give a prospect of bringing about peace, it is essential to see that two other factors exist. One is the spirit of reconciliation and compromise. I must tell the House that I believe that that has existed at Lancaster House. If it can exist there, it can exist in the country of Rhodesia in the next few months, proceeding to independence.
Secondly, there must be a spirit of trust. At the end of the day, however many bits of paper we exchange, there must be trust in the British Government that we have every intention of fulfilling those obligations to which we have agreed at Lusaka and at Lancaster House. I think it only right, therefore, that we should invite the black and white people of Rhodesia to put their trust in us. We realise how great our responsibility is and that the onus rests on us.
Let us leave it not to this House but to historians to judge who is to blame for the tragic story of Rhodesia over the last 15 years. Tonight let us concentrate our minds on how we can create the right conditions for bringing about peace. I believe that the Bill contributes to that aim. If we can concentrate our minds on bringing about peace, I hope that the House will unite in supporting the Bill on Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Berry.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

INDEPENDENCE FOR ZIMBABWE

Mr. Shore: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert
'no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments: 
No. 3, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
'(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section before a report from the Commonwealth observers that the election was free and fair has been submitted to and accepted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
'(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section before a report by the Governor, advised by the Commonwealth observers and the Election Commission, that the election was free and fair has been submitted to and accepted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
'(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section before a report from the Election Council that the election was free and fair has been submitted to and accepted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 16, at end insert:
'(4) No Order in Council shall be made under this section until a report from the Election Commission has been submitted to both Houses of Parliament and both Houses of Parliament have determined by resolution that the election was free and fair'.

Mr. Shore: The Committee will by now be sufficiently familiar with clause 1 to understand that it deals with the independence of Zimbabwe and that it envisages an independence day which has yet to be proclaimed. As the Lord Privy Seal told us, that day will be some time after the election has taken place and after

the Governor has consulted the newly elected Prime Minister of Zimbabwe and, I assume, the other political leaders.
I come straight to the point. As clause 1(3) stands, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, all that is to happen is that an Order in Council—and I quote the words of the clause—
…shall be laid before Parliament after being made.
In other words, there is no provision that the Order in Council should be approved by Parliament.
I devoted part of my speech on Second Reading to the reasons why we feel that that is unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), who wound up for the Opposition on Second Reading, paid considerable attention to this point and I need not labour the point again. Our amendment sets out what we believe to be the most effective and sensible way of once more bringing before the scrutiny of Parliament the events and the many developments which are bound to take place between our discussion of the Bill today and the post-election independence of Zimbabwe. We cannot easily envisage the development of the events of the next 10 to 12 weeks. We all have a feeling that many things will happen and that it will be a fraught period. At least we know that an election is to be held. Perhaps that is the most important internal event for Zimbabwe.
The way in which that election is to be conducted is of the utmost importance. We shall need to be satisfied that the election has been free and fair. That is the essence of what is required in Zimbabwe. It is the one major matter about which we must be satisfied before we say "Yes" to an order which nominates a day as independence day. It is wrong to decide now that we have nothing more to say, regardless of how the election takes place, regardless of the train of events and regardless of the scale of irregularities—and, of course, there will be irregularities. That would be irresponsible and unworthy of us in view of the enormous and painful attention that has been given to Rhodesia in the past 14 years.
We are discussing a number of other amendments and no doubt my hon. Friends will wish to refer to them. They


spell out in different ways what I almost take for granted. They assume that in one way or another there will be a report upon the elections in Zimbabwe under the authority of the Governor. They assume that a report will be produced, whether by the Commonwealth observers who are to play an important part in observing and witnessing the election, whether by the Governor, the election commission or a Select Committee of the House. An amendment which was not selected suggested that a Select Committee should make such a report. The origin of the report does not really matter so long as there is an authoritative report on the way in which the election is conducted.
No hon. Member would say that this was a minor matter. We remember well the rival and often conflicting reports from observers following the elections in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia earlier this year. The arrangements then were inadequate. There should be—indeed, there are bound to be—Commonwealth observers; and with those of our own people who have experience of going to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia there is every possibility of getting an objective and comprehensive report on the election.
I believe that we should have a report. I am not sure whether we need to embody it in an amendment, but I am certain that whether or not we have a report, and whatever form such a report might take, it is important that the House should have the opportunity, before independence day is nominated or announced by Order in Council, to debate and give judgment upon what has happened in Zimbabwe and to give its consent to the proclamation, as it were, of independence.
I hope that the Government will not be difficult about that. I hope that they will not parade the old argument that, under the procedures that have been put forward, it is possible that we shall have to wait up to 28 days. We know that that is not so. It would be entirely up to the Government, with an Order in Council of the kind that we suggest, to place the matter before Parliament for decision at any time after that order was laid. Therefore, the matter could be brought before the House, debated and decided within three or four days, if that was what was required, of the election, or after the report upon it had been received. So there

should be no argument that it would be inconvenient because of the time span under an affirmative order of the kind for which we have pressed.
With those arguments in mind, and taking account of the arguments that have been deployed on Second Reading, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment so that we can move on to other matters.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said, the Bill, as presented to us, takes no account of the possibility of the House of Commons debating the procedures of the election that we assume will be held in Rhodesia. The amendments that stand in my name and in the names of some of my hon. Friends are variations on a similar theme, which is to try to ensure that some form of report is made to the House before the final step of independence is taken.
Throughout our discussions earlier this evening—I suspect that it will occur in later discussions—the thread of the argument has been basically that what is now required for the future of Rhodesia is trust. The Patriotic Front must trust the Government, the Governor and the security forces. It must trust the Government to ensure that the South Africans are withdrawn. We have been asked to have a great deal of trust in the Government.
However, our difficulty—I expressed it earlier—is that, although we saw the proposals that were deposited in the Library, we saw them after the agreement stage had been reached. We raised points of detail with the Minister. The Minister has said that he has reported regularly to us on the progress of the negotiations, but he has never reported to us on issues of detail.
Whatever happens from now on, or from whenever the final agreement is reached, we have a responsibility to ensure that as far as possible everything goes well. After the election is over we, as a Parliament, must be able to say that we have discharged our responsibilities to the people of Rhodesia, especially now that we have taken that country back to legality after 14 long years.
In order to help foster the trust of the parties involved at Lancaster House, we


have suggested in our amendments a number of different ways in which a report might be made. I shall give later details of the best solution. The final agreement is being held up by this matter of trust. There is a feeling among members of the Patriotic Front that if they sign an agreement which is not exactly what they would wish but which they have accepted in a spirit of negotiation and compromise, they are expected to take a lot on trust.
The previous Act was pushed through while negotiations were still in progress. Therefore, if we push through another Act which allows the Government to confer independence on Zimbabwe, the Patriotic Front will feel that there is no way in which it can retrieve the situation if its fears prove to be justified. We must show the parties concerned that we are willing to take another look at the whole issue if things do not work out.
The major and perhaps the only remaining point of any substance in the details of the ceasefire to be decided is the question of the disposition of the forces and the monitoring of them. According to information provided to the conference, specific areas have been identified where the Patriotic Front forces will rendezvous. These rendezvous points are close to the positions which those forces hold at present. The Patriotic Front forces are being asked to move from these rendezvous points to assembly points on the periphery of the country. In other words, they have been asked to evacuate the centre of the country. I do not make any extravagant claim about the Patriotic Front forces controlling the centre of the country, but the Government appear to recognise and accept that those forces are in these central areas.
Although the Patriotic Front forces are being asked to move to assembly points, there will be no such movement of the Rhodesian security forces from their areas to specific points. Unless we can find some way of solving this problem, there may not be an agreement at all.
We seek from the Government an assurance that they will be flexible in their negotiating position, and that that position will not be hard and fast on the question of monitoring. If we cannot have this assurance, there is a grave danger that the present negotiations will

be disturbed and all that the Bill represents will be lost.
In our amendments we canvass a number of specific propositions. First, we believe that there should be a report from the Commonwealth observers to the House of Commons on whether the elections were free and fair. That is not an unreal proposition. In the arrangements agreed at Lancaster House there is provision for Commonwealth observers. As far as I am aware, the number of such observers is not specified. Perhaps that will have to be determined.
What are the observers to do? Are they simply to go to Rhodesia? If they are unhappy, if they do not believe that things are working out properly and take the view that the elections were not free or fair, what do they do then? Do they just return to their own countries and say that they are not happy? How are they to comment on the way in which the elections have been run? There must be some mechanism by which they can make a report. The place to report to is the House, through the Government or the Governor. They should prepare a specific report to be laid before the House before we put our final seal of approval on the independence constitution.
The agreed arrangements contain a provision for an election commission. In addition to the Governor and his staff—I do not suppose that they will be involved in the day-to-day work of the commission—there will be representatives of the British Government on the election commission. We understand from the press that numbers of people with experience of elections are waiting to go. In addition, parties contesting the election will be represented on the commission. That will allow investigations and reports of irregularities to be made and give the parties a feeling that they are participating and that the commission is not wholly outside their control. This arrangements will allow them to have trust in the manner in which the elections are conducted.
9 pm
I have no reason to doubt the press reports that we are sending out people who are experienced in running elections. They should have a say in determining whether the elections were fair and free. They should have a part to play in reporting to the House on how the elections


were run. If anyone thinks that after the election we can simply say "That is all, boys; come home; that is the end of the matter," he should read the proposals. There is a provision in the Lancaster House proposals—I cannot remember whether it is contained in those tabled yesterday or in previous ceasefire proposals—that the monitoring force may remain in Rhodesia if the new Government want it to do so.
The United Kingdom Government admit the possibility that after the election there may be one or two matters that need sorting out. It may be necessary for the monitoring force of 1,200 men to stay on for a few days, or possibly a few weeks, in case, post election, there is too much exuberance which may spill over into something else. I do not know. The Government are aware of, and have taken on board, the worries of those taking part in the Lancaster House negotiations that all might not go according to plan, even after the election day. Therefore, it is important that there should be a procedure for making a report to Parliament.
Some Government supporters think that members of the Opposition take too gloomy a view. They think that we are churlish. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said that our fears arose more from sour grapes than genuine concern. It would be foolish if I said that I wished that a Labour Government alone had been able to resolve the matter. I assure Government supporters of my genuine concern to ensure that, if an agreement is reached, it sticks and that there is no trouble after the election. I have a genuine concern that there should be stability in Rhodesia. I visited Angola and Mozambique and saw the aftermath of instability and the possibility of the destabilisation of Governments. Immediately after their election, Governments are very susceptible to destabilisation.
I do not take lightly the threat made by the South Africans that, if the Government eventually elected in Rhodesia are not to their liking, they will make sure that they are stopped. I know that the Under-Secretary said that that would be a serious responsibility, but they have been doing that repeatedly in Mozambique. They have been repeatedly attacking and invading Zambia and Angola.

Therefore, why should we think that they will adopt a completely new philosophy on foreign policy towards the new Zimbabwe? I am seriously worried about the possibility of intervention and the possibility that the Rhodesian security forces will create a coup and install some other Government, especially if there is no change in the disposition of forces.
For these reasons, the Government would be unwise to say "It is all over. We have nothing to be concerned about." I believe that they have a better chance of obtaining an agreement and of getting what they want if they ensure that the arrangements for the transition period operate effectively and that there is an election which, at the end of the day, we can all accept. If the Government will accept an amendment—not necessarily this amendment—which will ensure an intermediate stage between now and eventual independence, I believe that that will help the agreement to move forward and will help people to work effectively for a free Zimbabwe.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) set out our general fears on this matter. If the Government are being fair about the proposals that they have put before the House, they will recognise that if an order is to be tabled, with the possibility of a parliamentary review, it is better that it should have the teeth of a positive resolution in both Houses and that that positive resolution should follow some form of report back that allows the House to take a clear decision on the matter. If the report is that the election was free and fair, I doubt whether there will be any delay. The matter may be put through in a few minutes.
Our real concern is about what will happen if a free and fair election does not take place. If that were to be the situation, would any Conservative Member, let alone any Labour Member, want Rhodesia to go into independence after a palpably rigged election? Clearly not. Therefore, I should have thought that the amendment would be accepted unopposed.
The only issue is the form of the report back. I am sorry that you, Mr. Weatherill, could not accept my amendment, because that seemed to me to


suggest the best way of all. I think that the best way would be for the House to have people whom it knew and trusted to go out to Rhodesia as members of a Select Committee and to come back and possibly say "We have looked at the situation. We think that the election was free and fair." That would be better than any of the devices that have been suggested so far.
The monitoring group from the Commonwealth is an army of soldiers concerned about the military disposition, not election practice. The Election Commissioner who will go out from this country is an official who will deal with the formal method of registering an election. It is rather like asking the town clerk of a city to come along and tell us whether there has been a fair election in his city. He does not have the political perspective to make that kind of judgment. We need politicians whom we know and trust to go out there and to come back and give us their judgment on the election. That is why I hope that, even though my amendment has not been selected, the Government will yet think that that is a way of meeting these anxieties.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not argue for his amendment, because it has not been selected.

Mr. Lyon: I accept that, Mr. Weatherill. However, although it was not accepted, I was assured that I could mention it.
The Government may think that our fears are groundless, but I fail to understand how anyone can possibly take that view when there are three months of uncharted territory before us and an election thereafter.
Let me put to the Lord Privy Seal the detail that so far has emerged that justifies these anxieties. Until today, the country of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has been under the control of a man and a party who will be part of this election. Already he and his party have booked all the buses in Rhodesia until next March. Anybody who has ever been to Rhodesia knows that there is a constant movement between the tribal trust lands and the African townships in the cities. That

movement is almost all by buses owned by African entrepreneurs. With all those buses booked by Bishop Muzorewa's party until next March, there is no way in which the Patriotic Front can hire buses inside Rhodesia to transport their people to the polls. They will have to find some other way of transporting them.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who seems to think that the Kremlin has an outpost of empire down in Meikle's hotel in Salisbury, suggested that there is a lot of Communist money flashing around that will be used in the process of the election. I can tell him, and I know that the Lord Privy Seal is aware of this, that the Patriotic Front is concerned about where it will get the necessary money to run the election. Its cash sources are extremely limited, and for it to hire alternative vehicles when no buses are available will cause major difficulty.
In addition, the whites control the business premises in the two major cities, Bulawayo and Salisbury. There is practically no black ownership of real property in the centre of either of those towns. Where will the Patriotic Front get offices? Already the word has gone out among the whites that offices should not be rented to the Patriotic Front. All kinds of difficulties are already emerging, therefore.
The Lord Privy Seal has given a general assurance that the Governor wishes there to be equality of treatment in the mass media. Perhaps the Rhodesia Herald and the television do not matter so much. Out in the tribal trust lands the people do not have much use for either. They get their sources of information by radio—not necessarily radios that they own themselves. They hear the radios in the shops. Who will decide on the balance within the radio programmes? It is all very well to say that the Governor thinks that that should be done fairly. I am sure that he does, and I am sure that the broadcasting man that he takes out with him thinks so, too. However, we all know from our experience of the BBC that it needs only one producer to decide that the proper balance falls in a particular way and one knows that one will be misrepresented and that the case that one thought one was putting will not actually get across.
All the producers in Rhodesia have worked for Rhodesian broadcasting throughout the period of illegality. It is they who have been constantly campaigning against the Patriotic Front, using the media in a way which even the most Right-wing of our journalists who go out for The Daily Telegraph find offensive. The kind of news that one hears through Rhodesian broadcasting is a travesty of fair and free broadcasting. How will that be dealt with, and will it give a fair and free election?
I think that I have said enough to indicate that already a pattern is emerging that causes us some concern. The real issue is how the Governor, with his limited staff, can control all these difficulties, recognising that the Civil Service in Rhodesia will be the same Civil Service as operated under Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa. There are massive areas in which it can tend to show bias towards one party rather than another.
It is therefore essential that before we take the final step to allow Rhodesia to have its independence we should be assured that there has been a free and fair election which justifies the election of whoever gets most votes.

Mr. Hooley: I explained in my speech on Second Reading that the circumstances under which Parliament is purporting to grant independence to Zimbabwe are most extraordinary. I am not going over all those points again, but, so far as I know, Parliament has never previously sought to grant independence to any dependent territory unless the situation there was stable and peaceful and there was some acknowledged national leader, some accepted legislature and a general presumption that, on independence, the life of the country would continue in a normal and peaceful manner.
Here, we have a totally contrary situation. The Government acknowledge this by the mere fact that they have accepted the need for a monitoring force for the transitional period. All the points that have been rehearsed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) indicate the practical difficulties that will be faced in the next three months. I would have thought that in those circumstances Parliament—this House and the other

House—should make an act of ratification of what goes on in the next three months and that the Government should put down an order that Parliament can then say is satisfactory and that gives the seal of approval to what has gone on, or, in very exceptional circumstances that I hope will not happen, will refuse to accept that what has been done, due to the various difficulties that have been rehearsed, was fair and proper.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is there not another possibility? If the Government, as we hope, accept this amendment and some doubt and some difficulty arises, which we hope will not happen, the mere fact that there has to be an affirmative order may make the Government hesitate even to bring it before the House. Without the amendment there would be a temptation, in such circumstances, for them to take the premature attitude to events that they appear to have done on at least two occasions in the past.

Mr. Hooley: That is a fair point. The fact that there would have to be a final act of ratification by Parliament might also act as a deterrent to certain people in Zimbabwe who would have to reflect, if they thought they might have something to gain by being disruptive, that, at the end of the day, if they were disruptive and their disruption called in question the whole interim process, they would know that this Parliament still reserved to itself the power to decline to give the seal of approval to the election process and the interim stages that have yet to be gone through.
It is worth repeating a point that I made earlier. If this exercise is to be fully successful, we have to secure the approval of the international community. That means the approval of the countries of Africa and the Commonwealth and the approval of the United Nations. Hon. Members may think that this does not matter or that it is a secondary consideration. I do not think that it is a secondary consideration. I am sure that if, by some mischance, the election process went through in an unsatisfactory manner and the Government's reaction was to say that they were fed up with this business, that this was good enough, and to take the attitude "For Heaven's sake, let's get


rid of it", we would then face the situation of an independent Zimbabwe that Africa and the United Nations were not prepared to recognise. We would have done a very ill service to the people of Zimbabwe. If that situation should arise, we would not have discharged our duties as a Parliament satisfactorily.
I do not see what the Government have to lose if they accept the amendment. After all, they have the ultimate power to put the order before the House. If they think that things have gone well enough for the process to be ratified, no doubt they will summon their cohorts, as Governments usually do, and the order will be approved. But at least Parliament will have had the final word.
We will have said to the world that we entered on the exercise in good faith, observed carefully how it was put into effect and are satisfied that, within the limits of human fallibility, the elections were free and fair. In good conscience, we could pass the order giving Zimbabwe independence.
In the tragic event that the elections were not conducted satisfactorily or a mishap occurred that invalidated the result in the eyes of the world, Parliament would have the right to say "We embarked on the exercise in good faith, but it has not worked and we cannot give it the final stamp of approval".

Mr. loan Evans: It would expedite our proceedings if we had an indication from the Government whether the amendment is acceptable or the reasons why they cannot accept what seems to be an eminently sensible proposal.

Mr. Hooley: That is a charming suggestion but one that it is not within my power to further. The Government have nothing to lose by accepting the amendment. It could act as a deterrent to any element in Zimbabwe wishing to disrupt proceedings and would enable Parliament to ratify or decline to ratify the process that we have set in motion.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Like the charming hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I have a great love of brevity, and my speech will certainly be brief. I rise to suport the amendment and to make three short points related to interventions that have already been made.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) properly pointed out that both the monitoring group and the electoral commission should have an opportunity of indicating their views not only to the Government but to the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should make clear that I was speaking not of the monitoring force but of the observers. Various communiqués have made clear that Commonwealth observers will be present to witness the elections. Commonwealth Governments will be invited to send observers, whose role will be to witness that the elections have been free and fair. It is those Commonwealth observers who should be involved in the report to the House.

Mr. Johnston: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. The officers whom the Government are sending from this country, for the good and sound reason that they have knowledge of elections and can make sure that they are properly conducted, should also have an opportunity of expressing a conclusion about what they have seen and how the elections were conducted.
I do not see what objection there can be to the amendment. The Government have called at various stages for the trust of the House and they have been given its trust and co-operation. They, in turn, should trust the House by saying that the House has accepted the Government's risk and has a responsibility in the matter. We should be able to exercise that responsibility in a proper manner by saying that we have witnessed the act being done, we are well pleased with it, we approve it and we ratify it. I do not see anything wrong with that.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that the Government had had the trust and co-operation of hon. Members. Certainly that is true, and I am grateful to the Committee. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) spoke about the spirit of amity that prevails, and that is correct. I am grateful for that, and especially grateful for the attitude, tone and content of the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), in an extremely


cogent speech—and there have been many cogent speeches on the amendment—said that he hoped that the Government would not be difficult. I assure him that I am not being difficult. It is not through being either contrary or perverse that I wish to put the other side of the case.
The hon. Member for Inverness asked why the Government do not accept the amendment. I hope that I can convince him of our case. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when he replied on Second Reading, all the major issues at the constitutional conference have been resolved. The Committee must now from a judgment on whether the conditions for independence have been established. In the Government's view, they have been established, and I shall not detail again what has been decided at the constitutional conference.
I ask the Committee to bear in the mind the following points. First, as I stressed on Second Reading, the Government have asked both sides of the constitutional conference to make concessions. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar paid tribute to them for the way, and the fact, that they have done so. They have agreed to our proposals on the understanding that, provided they fulfil the agreed conditions, independence will be forthcoming. The Rhodesian Parliament has been dissolved and Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues are standing aside on the understanding that an irreversible process has begun that will lead to independence. At this stage we cannot put the issue in doubt by imposing further conditions.
The certainty that independence will follow if the agreements reached at Lancaster House are honoured will be a powerful incentive, in the interim period, for both parties to stick to their side of the bargain. We cannot say "Maybe you will get independence or maybe you will not; it all depends." It will be our responsibility to ensure that the elections are free and fair, and that is what we intend to do.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes rose—

Sir I. Gilmour: Secondly, the Opposition amendment, if accepted, could have curious consequences. In the Government's eyes, the sending of the Govenor and the passage of the Bill are closely

associated. We have undertaken to discharge our responsibility to bring Rhodesia to legal independence, and that process has been set in train with the Governor's arrival in Salisbury. It may interest the Committee to hear what Lord Soames said on Rhodesian television this evening:
My aim is to work with you for a better and more peaceful future for all the people of this country, and my task is to hold the government of the country in trust while the political leaders put their case to you and seek your votes. When you have made your choice I shall hand over my powers to the Government which you elect. Your country will then become legally independent. This is an irreversible process. My task will then be complete and I shall return to London.
9.30 pm
I stress to the Committee that there can be no question of Britain taking on an open-ended commitment or accepting a situation in which our stay in Rhodesia could, even in theory, be extended. Our only purpose in assuming legislative or executive authority in Rhodesia is to allow elections to be held in which all parties may participate on an equal footing. It will be the Governor's responsibility, with the aid of his staff, to ensure that the elections are fair. Thereafter we shall grant independence to whatever Government are elected. It is a finite process. We do not envisage that it will take more than about a week. If I may say so, the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar made an estimate that seemed to be accurate. The Government cannot accept an open-ended commitment. Our intention is to discharge our responsibility.
Almost every contributor to the debate has referred to the need to ensure that the elections are free and fair. That is the purpose of the course on which the Government have embarked in sending a Governor to Rhodesia. The task of Lord Soames is to enable peaceful activity by all parties to be conducted freely without fear of intimidation. We will be assisted by an Election Commissioner with a staff of over 100, who will supervise the electoral process of the polling itself.
The Committee will be aware from the publication of various documents that each party will have the right to have its observer at each polling station. Commonwealth and other observers will be present. The Government are going to


great lengths to ensure that the elections are fair. The Government's reputation is involved in ensuring that they are. If irregularities are brought to the Governor's notice, he will take appropriate action. It will be for other Governments to reach their own decisions on the conduct of the elections. As I have said, responsibility for ensuring that the elections are free and fair will be ours and we shall discharge it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I was not sure how the right hon. Gentleman would proceed in Committee. I was not sure whether he would respond to further interventions. I am glad that he has given way. In a document dated 2 November 1979, which carries the imprint VSQAG/79, at page 5, article 26,it is stated:
Commonwealth Governments will be invited to send observers to the elections. Their role will be to observe that the elections are genuinely free and fair and that the British Government is carrying out its responsibilities to supervise them. No restrictions will be placed on their movements, and every effort will be made to facilitate their task.
I understand that it has been agreed at Lancaster House that Commonwealth observers will have a dual role, namely, to observe the elections to ensure that they are free and fair and to ensure that the British Government
is carrying out its responsibilities to supervise them.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Governor will do it all and that that is the end of the matter if observers are to be invited to carry out the role that I have described. How are they to discharge it on behalf of the Rhodesian people and the British Parliament if the Governor is to do it all?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can fairly accuse me of a reluctance to give way to interventions.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I apologise. I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of refusing to give way. I was reluctant to intervene because I did not know how he would respond to further interventions.

Sir I. Gilmour: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It might have been better if I had not given way to him. I was about to deal with the question of Commonwealth

observers, who have been mentioned by virtually everybody.
The Governor has the power to take appropriate action against any party that consistently breaks the rules or practises intimidation. We have done everything, and will do everything possible, to ensure that the conditions set out in the agreed document concerning the pre-independence arrangements will be honoured.
The presence of Commonwealth observers will provide an added incentive to all parties to abide by the rules. There will probably be one Commonwealth team, consisting of representatives from a number of Commonwealth countries, as well as individual Commonwealth observers. Some countries may send representatives as part of the team in addition to their own observers. Those observers have an important part to play in witnessing that the elections are conducted fairly.
The communiqué from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Lusaka said that it was the constitutional responsibility of the British Government to supervise the elections with Commonwealth observers. It is also our responsibility to grant legal independence to Rhodesia on the basis of majority rule. The Bill enables us to do that, and we shall discharge our responsibility.
The Government appreciate the wish of the House to keep a close watch on developments in Rhodesia as that country moves towards independence. We shall ensure that the House is adequately informed, as we have done previously. The House will be able to discuss events and express its views in a variety of ways. Every technique of opposition and persuasion will be open to hon. Members. Motions of censure could be moved if the Opposition felt so inclined, although I hope that they would not feel so inclined. Having got the parties at the conference to agree to satisfactory terms concerning independence, it is not right to suspend that agreement or hold over those parties the proverbial sword of Damocles.
The parties are committed to abiding by that agreement and we should show good faith in return. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil spoke of this as the final stage. Successive Governments have often been criticised for adding further hurdles to an already wearving race.


However, the final hurdle placed before those parties is that of agreement at the conference. To ask hon. Members to decide the issue now is not inconsistent with our continuing responsibility.
The decision to send a British Governor to Rhodesia marks the beginning, as Lord Soames said this evening, of an irreversible process leading to legal independence. The Government are taking action in order to discharge their responsibilities and not to prolong the situation. The Government cannot accept an open-ended responsibility, nor can the Governor. That is why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir I. Gilmour: I have finished.

Mr. Dobson: Although I have listened carefully to everything that the Lord Privy Seal has said, and although I have been accused of sour pessimism about the settlement. I shall remain pessimistic until the Lord Privy Seal can explain to me, and to most of my colleagues, what will happen if at any stage of the proceedings the Commonwealth observers say that the elections have not been free and fair.
The basis of consent by the House to the agreement is that the elections will be free and fair. We are told that Lord Soames is infallible. I do not accept the concept of papal infallibility, nor do I accept the concept of gubernatorial infallibility. Everyone wants free and fair elections that will be accepted by all parties to be free and fair, so that the losers will be bound to accept the outcome. Let us face it; anyone who loses an election has doubts about it. If the doubts of the losers are endorsed by the Commonwealth observers, they will have a let-out to continue whatever adversarial action towards the new Government they want.
In addition, we are trying to establish a Government who will be accepted by other countries and by the United Nations. Here again, if, following the elections, the Commonwealth observers decide that they were not fair and free, we shall not get international acceptance for Zimbabwe. Therefore, the Lord Privy Seal is under an obligation to clarify that matter.
It may be a reversal of the normal parliamentary procedure, but I feel that the right hon. Gentleman must justify not accepting the amendment, rather than our having to prove that it is necessary, because it seems self-evident that it is necessary.

Mr. John Maxton: Many Opposition Members were rather disturbed by the Lord Privy Seal's use of the word "irreversible". It expressed many of the fears that we have had throughout this whole process. In effect, what he is saying is that, even though we still have not got a full ceasefire, and even though we have no real guarantee that there will be fair elections, the process is irreversible. He is arguing that whether or not there is a ceasefire, whether or not the elections are free and fair, and whatever happens, the process will go ahead. To many of us that means that under some guise or other we shall have a continuation of the Smith regime and a continuation of white supremacy. We are not prepared to accept that.
The Lord Privy Seal should reconsider the amendment and give it his support. He should allow the House to give its agreement to the final act of independence when it knows that there is a legitimate Government in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Shore: The Lord Privy Seal has disappointed the Committee. Although I listened carefully to his arguments, as I am sure other hon. Members did, I did not find them persuasive.
I wish to comment on the two major arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used. First, he said that the parties to the conference had been assured that an irreversible process had been embarked upon and that it would be almost a breach of trust between the Government and the parties at Lancaster House if it did not proceed. I find that very difficult to believe. I am sure that the parties at Lancaster House have almost an equal interest to ensure that the elections are conducted fairly and that no unexpected or intrusive events take place that might disturb the results of the elections.
I cannot believe that the parties would take the view that a report back to this House, and to the other place as well, could possibly be taken as meaning that the Government had gone back on their commitment. I cannot accept that the


amendment is a sort of sword of Damocles, because the parties know that we would contemplate withholding the declaration of independence only if some pretty dreadful and catastrophic event intervened.
Secondly, the Lord Privy Seal argued that the Government cannot accept an open-ended commitment. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was well advised to use that argument. I understand very well that the Government do not wish to continue their slender and delicately poised presence in Rhodesia any longer than circumstances warrant, but it is not good enough for the Government to say that, regardless of events, as soon as the elections are out of the way and the minimum number of formalities that were described earlier have been completed the Governor will recommend that the Secretary of State should declare and nominate independence day.
9.45 pm
Arguments against that proposal were put up by my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members. They were made particularly persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). The hon. Member for Inverness asked the Government to trust the House, just as the House has been asked, in a most extraordinary way, to trust the Government and pass a Bill months ahead of events—indeed, very uncertain events. Those events will unfold now that Lord Soames has arrived in Salisbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said that it would help to create confidence and trust in the minds of those involved in the discussions at Lancaster House, and no doubt in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, if the arrangements were reported back to the House. It is important to establish that trust now.
The amendment that we have moved would be of considerable assistance to the Governor. Knowing that the matter has to come back to Parliament to be approved on an affirmative order would have some part to play in giving a certain stability to the events. Those who, on the morrow of polling day, might be tempted to take a course of action which they might otherwise refrain from doing would

be forced to think twice. The idea that, regardless of events, the Government will confirm independence by order rather than by a definite and proper vote in this place greatly weakens the possibility of our influencing events between now and independence day.
Many hon. Members have arrived late in the Chamber because they were unsure when the vote would take place. We shall certainly press this matter to a vote. I hope that those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout will think twice about this matter. The Government do not have a strong case, even for the support of their own supporters. I hope that the Committee will unite and insist upon accepting our amendment, to ensure that an affirmative order is brought before the House at the end of the events that are being set in train.

Mr. Spearing: The voice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) has, as usual, combined common sense with constitutional propriety. Alas, throughout the serious and worrying negotiations the Government, in the view of some of my hon. Friends and myself, have not shown a comparable degree of concern—at least, in respect of the wisdom of the comments that they have made and sometimes, alas, in the manner in which matters have been conducted.
I acquit the Lord Privy Seal of any wish to mislead the House or to do anything that is not up to the highest standards of democratic government. However, I have to remind him that those Opposition Members who have warned and have felt deep forebodings over the way in which certain matters have been handled have never been able to see his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. I do not think that I have ever set eyes on the Foreign Secretary of this country. That we have not been able to question the Secretary of State himself at certain times has cast something of an air of gloom over the proceedings.
When the Lord Privy Seal brought to the House the first Bill a few weeks ago, some of us were full of foreboding, because at that time no agreement had been reached. I concede that it may well have been the fact that the Government


got that Bill that helped with the agreement that followed. At the same time, however, the right hon. Gentleman was asking the House to give its assent to something when, in terms of usual constitutional proprieties, he had no right to ask for that.
During that debate a number of us, on many occasions, asked the right hon. Gentleman why he was not in favour of a large Commonwealth force, or at least a larger Commonwealth force, to ensure free and fair elections and to give some degree of stability to an area that we all want to remain stable, free and peaceful. On every occasion the right hon. Gentleman sought refuge in the fact that negotiations were taking place, and he refused to answer any question of that sort.
Today we have the second Bill, which has been introduced before the final arrangements for the ceasefire—again, a repetition of a process in which one might have thought that the constitutional proprietries would have suggested a reverse order.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Governor now in Salisbury is the Governor of a colony temporarily, that legality is now restored, and that, irreversibly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, independence and legality as an independent State will follow. But all the time the right hon. Gentleman is presuming on the will of the House. By denying the opportunity for a final view of the House of Commons on an Order in Council, he is denying the Opposition's right to associate themselves with the final act of independence. We are not in a position today to make a final judgment. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that is so. Unhappily, it is so, because the ceasefire is not with us.
The last chance that the House of Commons will have, and the last power that it will have, albeit perhaps de jure or by example, will be when the Question is put on Third Reading. If we had one other order at some future date the Government would, quite properly, have to render account for their trusteeship. The right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar mentioned trust time and again

in their closing speeches on these amendments, but I put it to the Lord Privy Seal that by denying the right of the House of Commons to look at the Order in Council and an opportunity for the Government to render account on that question he is taking away from Parliament trust that he has no right to take.
If the right hon. Gentleman wished to help to engender here an atmosphere of support for his Government in the very difficult path that lies ahead, he would have been very much wiser to accept this reasoned and cogent amendment, because then the constitutional proprieties would have been seen to have been carried out in this place and would thereby provide an example for the constitutional proprieties in Zimbabwe.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I call the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Robert Hughes: We have been trying for 14 years to discover a way of resolving the Rhodesian situation. I should think that hon. Members would at least be concerned that we spent a few minutes trying to get it right.
The Lord Privy Seal has confirmed that the Government have given their full and solemn approval to the proposition, agreed at Lancaster House, that the Commonwealth will send observers to see whether the elections are free and fair and to ensure that the British Government are carrying out their responsibilities. He was unable to say how the observers would discharge their role and how they would communicate their conclusions to the House or anywhere else. The Lord Privy Seal was asked about the process towards independence being irreversible even though elections were found not to be free and fair. I was astonished to see Conservative Members nodding their heads with great enthusiasm. They appeared to be delighted at the prospect that we might approve independence on elections which were not free and fair. That is absolute nonsense.
It is because of that kind of attitude that there is deep concern at what has taken place at Lancaster House. All of us are anxious not to say anything which


could be construed as making things more difficult for the Government in reaching agreement. We want the Government to reach agreement. We want the Patriotic Front to come to an agreement, just as we want elections. However, if we do not achieve the conditions that we believe are essential we shall be in difficulty in passing the Bill.
The Lord Privy Seal said that the Government could not take on an open-ended commitment. Of course they could not, and I understand that. At least he appears to anticipate that after election day there may not be a readily apparent Government able to take over. Paragraph 26 of the document that he submitted yesterday at Lancaster House states:
Finally, I am conscious of the concern on both sides about the situation which might arise after the elections. I have made it clear that if there is a general wish the monitoring force would stay in Rhodesia until the independence Government are formed and independence is granted.
So the right hon. Gentleman and the conference foresee the possibility that it may

be necessary for the monitoring force to remain after the elections.

If that is the case, surely it would be prudent and I believe helpful—because we are trying to be helpful—to the Government in their negotiations at Lancaster House to accept my right hon. Friend's amendment, which would at least indicate to the parties concerned that if they felt that they had a grievance they would have an opportunity to put that grievance to the House of Commons.

The process that we are debating should not, if it goes utterly wrong, confer independence. There must be some assurances. If agreements are reached and if the propositions that we are discussing have any meaning—and they must have a meaning in order to be laid—the Lord Privy Seal should, even at this stage, repent and accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 131. Noes 172.

Division No. 125]
AYES
[9.58 pm


Alton, David
Golding, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Neill, Martin


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Palmer. Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pavitt, Laurie


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Prescott, John


Canavan, Dennis
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Race, Reg


Carmichael, Neil
Home Robertson, John
Radice, Giles


Clark, David (South Shields)
Homewood, William
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Conlan, Bernard
Howells, Geraint
Robertson, George


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Roper, John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sever, John


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheerman, Barry


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Leighton, Ronald
Silverman, Julius


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Soley, Clive


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Dixon, Donald
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dobson, Frank
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Douglas, Dick
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dubs, Alfred
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Urwin, Rt Hn Tom


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McNally, Thomas
Welsh, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitehead, Phillip


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Ewing, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan
Woolmer, Kenneth


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Mr. George Morton and


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Aspinwall, Jack
Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Osborn, John


Banks Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hastings, Stephen
Parris, Matthew


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Best Keith
Hawkins, Paul
Percival, Sir Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hawksley, Warren
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Heddle, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Barry
Rathbone, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Hicks, Robert
Renton, Tim


Braine Sir Bernard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rhodes James, Robert


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brinton, Tim
Hooson, Tom
Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rossi, Hugh


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Butcher, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Kilfedder, James A
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sims, Roger


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, Paul
Lang, Ian
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Chapman, Sydney
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Lee, John
Sproat, Iain


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Squire, Robin


Cockeram, Eric
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Cope, John
Loveridge, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Costain, A.P.
Luce, Richard
Tebbit, Norman


Crouch David
Lyell, Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
MacGregor, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Dorrell Stephen
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Thompson, Donald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dover, Denshore
McQuarrie,Albert
Thornton, Malcolm


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Major, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Marland, Paul
Trippier, David


Dykes, Hugh
Marlow, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Waddington, David


Eggar, Timothy
Mather, Carol
Waldegrave, Hon William


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mellor, David
Ward, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Watson, John


Fisher Sir Nigel
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wickenden, Keith


Forman Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Molyneaux, James
Wolfson, Mark


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Sir George (Acton)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Goodhew, Victor
Murphy, Christopher



Gorst, John
Myles, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Needham, Richard
Mr. John Wakeham.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nelson, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.


It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.


Committee report Progress


Ordered,


That, at this day's sitting, the Zimbabwe Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

ZIMBABWE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2

Nationality

Mr. Merlyn Rees:: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments: 
No. 8, in schedule 1, page 5, line 11, leave out paragraph 2.
No. 9, in schedule 1, page 5, line 20, leave out paragraph 3.
No. 10, in page 5, line 1, leave out schedule 1.

Mr. Rees: This is a probing amendment and I shall not detain the Committee long. It deals with the important question of citizenship. In our discussions so far the effects of subsection (2) and schedule 1 have not been crystal clear.
For the moment the fact that Zimbabwe is to be independent removes the question of what happens if and when that country becomes part of the Commonwealth. I realise that this is a matter for another occasion so I shall not pursue it. We have been promised a White Paper on the British Nationality Act 1948 and we all agree that that Act is in need of change. Very few people believe that we can keep the legislation in its present form. We use the term
citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
as meaning not citizenship but nationality, this legislation goes back to the days of the Empire and the status of "British subject" for all citizens of countries that were part of the Empire on which the sun never set.
Too often in matters of independence we make decisions that place responsibilities on this country at a later stage. I want to be sure that we do not take any decisions today that have the repercussions of the decisions that we took on independence legislation in the 1950s. These decisions on nationality left us with

responsibilities that arose later. At the time of taking them people were unaware of the consequences.
Independence is a sign that the day of the Empire is over, and in my view we must ensure that the countries that become independent do not have it both ways on citizenship. Citizenship of this country is one thing and citizenship of the country becoming independent is another.
As I understand it, clause 2(1) removes Southern Rhodesia from the list of Commonwealth countries mentioned in 1948 Act, thus making aliens of those Rhodesians who possess only Rhodesian citizenship.
10.15 pm
I shall come to numbers in a moment. Some Rhodesians who possess only Zimbabwean or Rhodesian citizenship will be aliens. Those Zimbabweans or Rhodesians who are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will, of course, remain so. This is important. Today we heard about the 50,000 people who may or may not come to the United Kingdom. Whatever the Government are doing in independence legislation cannot possibly remove the right of people born here, or who have a patriality under the 1971 Act, to come here. If there is an argument about numbers, a piece of independence legislation could not alter that situation.
Clause 2(2) and schedule 1 provide that certain citizens of Zimbabwe may continue to be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies as though they were still Commonwealth citizens. I want to ask questions about the second and third categories. All that schedule 1(1) does is to allow applications by citizens of Zimbabwe—perhaps it is better to say citizens of Southern Rhodesia, as they will have made applications previously—which were made but not determined before independence, to be processed as though they were applications from Commonwealth citizens. The schedule provides for Rhodesians ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and entitled to registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies by virtue of having lived here for five years, for example.
All that the Government are saying is that applications already in the pipeline


will be considered. In terms of numbers and those who are involved, I should have thought from past experience that the greater proportions of those, although small in number, would be black Rhodesians who studied and lived in this country. It would hardly apply to a white Rhodesian, because of the nature of the situation. The Act does not touch the first category, of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In the second part are those who have registered or are attempting to register here. We are in general talking about black people.
I want to ask questions about the third category, not only in terms of numbers, without causing scares about the matter, as developments in Rhodesia or Zimbabwe have been different in the past 14 years from what happened in other countries that became independent. I should like to know what view the Government have on the question of numbers.
As I understand it, we are talking about those who are kith and kin—those who were British subjects before 1 January 1949. If this is done on all fours with what happened when Pakistan became independent, years ago, we are referring to white people over the age of 30. The provision becomes wider when it involves the British subject descended in the male line from a person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom. Whatever arguments we may have about males and females in nationality legislation, nothing can be done until the House changes the 1948 nationality legislation. Whatever we may feel about the provisions for males and females, this is not the occasion to make an alteration. The 1948 legislation, as amended by Section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1958, refers to a person having close connections with this country.
If we are not talking about those who are in this country under the second heading that I raised, what do the Government mean by
close connections with this country"?
It is one thing to be descended only of one generation
in the male line from a person born or naturalised in the United Kingdom; and…has close connections with this country

but the Bill then goes on to say "intends to settle here."
When decisions on naturalisation are taken when we refer to aliens—registration being for citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—an important part of the Secretary of State's decision is whether the person concerned intends to settle here and is not merely seeking a British passport. An example that comes to mind is of someone who wanted to live in Cairo and wanted a British passport because it would be useful. This concerns someone who intends to settle in this country.
Given those four headings—I grant that this is comparable to the Pakistan legislation; I hope that I have been helpful in removing the first two propositions from any argument about numbers—what kind of numbers are we talking about? We are talking about people who were British subjects before 1949. A large number of people now in Rhodesia went there since 1950. They will be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies anyway, and the Bill will have no effect on their rights. Therefore, what numbers are we talking about?
There is a reference to the discretion of the Secretary of State. How will he interpret those four matters that I raised, in particular
close connections with this country…intends to settle here",
when earlier in the schedule, as it were, it refers to the male line? I should have thought that that encompassed the decision that the Secretary of State is to make.
It is not my view—of course, it may be the view of others—that in any event large numbers of people from Rhodesia will come here. When I made an estimate not so long ago, my view was that except for artisans who had gone to Rhodesia since 1950 who may want to come here—in any event, they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the law—the rest would probably go to South Africa and other countries if there were any problems and they did not want to stay in Rhodesia.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already a substantial number of those who left Rhodesia have come to live in this country? They have come back as patrials.


Therefore, they do not come into immigration statistics, because they are patrials.

Mr. Rees: I had just said that because those concerned were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and therefore patrials the Bill would have no effect on their rights. Many of them may have been out of the country for 10 or 15 years. But whether they come back or not will not cause problems that have been caused by others who have come here.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: They have not gone to Southall.

Mr. Rees: I hear that they have not gone to Southall. How will the Secretary of State interpret
close connections with this country
for those of British subject status before 1949? How will he determine whether they intend to settle here?
It will be interesting to have the Government's view on the numbers involved resulting from this part of the legislation which is almost on all fours with the Pakistan legislation of the early 1970s.
We shall not press these amendments to a Division, but citizenship is a matter of great importance and we should have the Government's view.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The nationality law, such as it is, in effect gives two citizenships. One is citizenship of the Commonwealth. That applies to anybody born anywhere in the Commonwealth. The other is independent citizenship of an independent country, such as Canada or New Zealand, or residual citizenship for anyone who cannot claim independent citizenship, which is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
In 1971 the Conservative Government drew a distinction between those who were and those who were not patrials. By and large, a patrial citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is a person who was born here, or whose father was born here. But there is an added patriality, and it is there that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) may have overlooked the significance of those provisions. A Commonwealth citizen who was the child of a person born here is himself patrial even

though he may be a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country, and that was the real racialist test of the 1971 Act. It obviously applied only to people who were white and were born in the Commonwealth, and it gave them a patriality that was not obtained by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who did not have that family connection with this country.
Of the 220,000 whites in Rhodesia, about 100,000 are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are patrial either because they were born here or because they are the children of someone who was born here. However, there are 50,000 who are Commonwealth citizens, but only because they are citizens of Southern Rhodesia, and they do not have that family connection. Nevertheless, they can become patrial because they have a parent who was born in this country.
The 50,000 will lose their right to enter this country under clause 2 if the schedule remains unamended. The difficulty arises only because the Government have decided that from the day of independence Zimbabwe will not be a member of the Commonwealth until it applies to rejoin. I simply do not understand why it should do that. The Minister tried to explain it to me earlier, but I did not accept either of the reasons that he gave for taking that course. It would have been perfectly easy for Rhodesia to continue in the Commonwealth after independence until the new Government decided to leave if they wanted to. If that course had been followed there would have been no need for any of these nationality provisions. As the Bill stands, all those Commonwealth citizens who are patrial only by the family connection would lose their right to enter this country and to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the British Nationality Act.
Schedule 1 is concerned with the right to register, and is divided into three parts. Paragraph 1 allows an application that has already been entered before day 1 to be processed and dealt with as if the person were a Commonwealth citizen who still had the right to register. I have no quarrel with that paragraph.
The two subsequent paragraphs, however, are attempts to deal with the situation in which the person would lose his


right to register if his rights as a Commonwealth citizen were withdrawn. They allow people who register after independence day but within 12 months to have their applications processed. In spelling out my objection to that, I may as well touch on the later amendment, on which my objection is the same. Those people who should never have been patrial anyway will be allowed to keep their patriality for a further12 months after independence in order that they can hedge their bets. They can decide to stay on in Rhodesia and keep their patriality and their opportunity to return to this country, or they can say that they do not like the colour of the Government who have been elected and, in spite of all their patriotic remarks in the past about defending Zimbabwe, will not defend it in the future but will return to Britain.
10.30 pm
My right hon. Friend thinks that most of them will not come back. I am not sure. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get into South Africa. It is becoming increasing difficult to get into other parts of the Commonwealth. I am not at all sure that they will find it easy to go elsewhere, whereas they have the right to come back here if they are patrial. About 50,000 are in that position.
It is therefore a serious issue for the House to consider whether we want that to apply at all. I accept the right of those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies to continue to have the right to enter where they are patrial. I do not understand, however, why it should apply to those who have the right through the cunning device of section 2(1)(d) of the 1971 Act, to which I was totally opposed. Hon. Members on the Government Benches only a week or so ago passed the most iniquitous immigration rules in order to stop 4,000 people coming into the country. They are now proposing blindly to pass this Bill, which will allow 50,000 to come in very quickly and take jobs as primary immigrants. This stinks of hypocrisy and should be stopped here and now.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall detain the Committee only briefly. As someone who took part in the Committee stage on the Pakistan Act, I should like to make some

observations that could be relevant to our discussion.
The provisions of paragraph 2 of schedule 1 should enable citizens of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, if resident in this country, to register as citizens of the United Kingdom within 12 months. If that provision were not contained in the legislation someone in that category would lose his rights as a British subject. He would not be able to join the Armed Forces, serve in the police or vote in elections. For that reason, paragraph 2 is eminently sensible. But the nationality provisions in this legislation exemplify yet again the necessity of reforming our laws of nationality at the earliest possible date. It is not right that the rights and entitlement of people who are resident in Britain should be consequent on whether they are citizens of the Commonwealth or of Eire. In my judgment, they should be consequent on residence in Britain and secondly, on whether they have a close family connection with this country.

Mr. Maxton: I cannot profess to have the knowledge of previous speakers on the immigration laws and previous Acts. What some hon. Members on the Opposition side find astonishing is that the right to be a British citizen and the right to come back here is to be given to those who have been in open rebellion against this country for the past 14 years. They are people who, deliberately, in 1964, as an act of public defiance against the British Government, burnt their British passports, but who will now be allowed to take up again British citizenship and come back into this country. Those who have suffered repression for the past 14 years will not be allowed to come here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) expressed concern over the dangers if large numbers of blacks from Rhodesia came here—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, I did not.

Mr. Maxton: I think that was my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Rees: I am happy to take many things. The chances of that happening are small. The second part of what I was arguing is that black students would benefit I raised no point about the matter.

Mr. Maxton: In that case, I withdraw what I said. A number of my hon.


Friends see considerable dangers in the immigration of large numbers of white Rhodesians who have lived under a racialist regime, who think in those terms and will inject that sort of thinking into our political system. That may not concern Conservative Members, because they think that most of those Rhodesians will join the Conservative Party. My worry is that the membership and force of the National Front will be increased.
We should give our protection to those who have opposed the illegal regime, rather than give succour to those who have deliberately continued the illegality.

Mr. Luce: It is common ground between us that the citizenship laws are utterly confusing. They are a highly complex labyrinth and the sooner we can clarify and simplify them the better it will be for us all. The Government intend to introduce a law to bring more sense into citizenship and nationality.
I am the first to admit that I have not even begun to master the complexities of the citizenship laws. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but I shall spell out the main reasons why it should not be pressed.
It is important to make clear that the Government are not making any new concessions on any new immigration commitment. The amendments would inflict hardship, for no apparent reason, on many individuals living in Rhodesia or this country. A transitional period to resolve the citizenship problems has been granted when other countries have left the Commonwealth.
There was a discussion on Second Reading on the question why the Government felt it necessary to write into the Bill a provision allowing for Rhodesia, on independence, not be to a member of the Commonwealth, but to be able to apply to become a member. I explained that we felt it wrong to pre-empt the decision of the new Government of Rhodesia, elected in free and fair elections under British authority, on whether they should be members of the Commonwealth. When a country applies to join the Commonwealth, approval has to be given by all other members of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth problem is the background to some of the problems that we are facing in citizenship laws. It is not right to pick on Rhodesians and treat them differently from the way in which Pakistan was treated when it left the Commonwealth.
All that the Government are proposing is that Rhodesians already in this count-try, who have an entitlement to registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, would have a further 12 months within which to apply for citizenship. Secondly, a narrow category of Rhodesians—those who were British subjects before 1 January 1949–with a United Kingdom-born ancestor in the male line and other close connections with the United Kingdom—I shall expand on "close connections" if the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) wishes—should have a further 12 months in which to apply for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies if they intend to take up residence in this country. Even then, they do not have an entitlement to register. Discretion lies with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the Secretary of State has to exercise discretion, there are some who, by virtue of their activities in recent years, will be subject to that judgment and that alone.

Mr. Luce: With all his experience as Home Secretary in previous Governments, the right hon. Gentleman is far more familiar with the problem than I can ever hope to be.
The transitional registration provisions do not represent an immigration commitment, as so few people will be eligible to apply. At most there will be a few hundred.
Various figures have been given concerning citizens who live in Rhodesia who have a right of abode in the United Kingdom. There are 80,000 citizens in Rhodesia who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a right of abode in the United Kingdom. There are 70,000 who are known as mono-Rhodesians, who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom on the ground of patriality.
We are providing a transitional period of one year to enable those concerned to realise the position that they face. That


applies to the Commonwealth and the transition for Rhodesia. The Bill does not create any substantial new immigration commitment; it continues the nationality and immigration provisions for one year to minimise hardship to the individual.
The attitude of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to whites in Rhodesia was totally and utterly vindictive. I am relieved that the rest of the Committee did not display that attitude. The background is not merely the transitional period but the decision that we have bad to take about the Commonwealth.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Minister's figure of 150,000 is the same as mine. Our subdivisions are different. Mine is 50,000 and his is 70,000. Is it correct that his 70.000 are what he called monopatrials, and that they are Commonwealth citizens and not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies? If the Bill is enacted without the transitional provisions and Zimbabwe leaves the Commonwealth, those 70,000 will lose their patriality and their right to enter. The transitional provisions exist to allow the 70,000 to come in if they want to in the first year.

Mr. Luce: Exactly the same happened with Pakistan. The hon. Gentleman is right. At the moment the 70,000 are Commonwealth citizens. They have the right of abode in this country on the ground of patriality. If Rhodesia is not a member of the Commonwealth, that right is withdrawn. To avoid vindictiveness and to give those concerned a clear picture of their position, we have provided that there shall be one year of transition. If during that one year, as we all hope, Rhodesia becomes a member of the Commonwealth, the problem will no longer exist and they will continue to have their present rights. I hope that the Committee feels that I have endeavoured fully to explain the position.

Mr. Bidwell: The Minister has alluded to patriality being the lineage connected with the male parent. Why has he not gone the whole way, as with the Common Market set-up, and recognised the equality of the spouses in this instance?

Mr. Luce: I shall not be drawn into that area. I would rather return to the salient points of this amendment and the

reasons why it would be wrong to press it. I hope that the Committee will agree with me.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that if a Zimbabwe national, resident in Britain, does not, within the 12-month period, elect for United Kingdom citizenship by registration, and if subsequently Zimbabwe applies to join the Commonwealth and is accepted, he will assume the rights of a British subject—rights that he did not previously enjoy—by virtue of events that will have occurred thousands of miles away?

Mr. Luce: I am taking a slight risk when I say that the answer is "Yes". If I am wrong, I will write to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is not appropriate to press the amendment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Mr. Merlyn Rees I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

AMNESTY IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ACTS

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 4, at end add—
'(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings arising out of any Order in Council made under section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, or any statutory provision implementing any resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations providing for the imposition of economic or other sanctions directed against Southern Rhodesia.'.

The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take new clause 1–Restriction on amnesty—
'No immunity from prosecution shall arise under this Act from criminal proceedings for breach of any sanctions legislation which has been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions prior to the passing of this Act '.

Mr. Rowlands: This amendment and the clause in the name of my hon. Friends return to the issue that was raised during the Second Reading debate by Opposition Members about the position of companies in the United Kingdom that may be under investigation, or subject to


prosecution, as a result of evading or breaking sanctions. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will confirm that clause 3 provides amnesty to people under the law of the United Kingdom, while amnesty within Rhodesia will be the subject of Governor's ordinances.
Clause 3 covers illegal acts and wipes the slate clean for those on both sides of the confrontation. We seek confirmation that that is the case. I hope that the slate will not be wiped clean for those companies that are subject to investigation as a result of activities concerning the breaking or evading of sanctions. Our amendment is designed to establish that beyond any shadow of doubt. I understand that the new clause, in the names of my hon. Friends, is intended to achieve the same end.
We seek a clear undertaking from the Lord Privy Seal that amnesty will not be extended to those firms that are subject to investigation, or whose cases are before the Director of Public Prosecutions. When the Minister wound up the debate he referred, rather disturbingly, to the possibility that a statement might be made in the next few days. The Opposition will be totally dissatisfied if we do not get that assurance and clarification. A clear distinction can be drawn between wiping the slate clean as regards actions on all sides of the conflict and the cynical, deceitful behaviour of an individual company that has tried to cheat and break United Kingdom law concerning sanctions. We do not believe that the same sort of amnesty should be given to those activities.
I do not think that I need elaborate on the reasons why that distinction should be made. A British company that knowingly broke sanctions, and knowingly broke a United Kingdom law that successive Governments have endorsed, re-endorsed and approved on an annual basis until November of this year, should not just walk away scot-free and say "Even though we were cheating, we should now be given redemption and the slate should be wiped clean".
We believe that there is a strong, material difference in the whole attitude, approach and behaviour of companies in relation to United Kingdom legislation that successive Governments have

supported and upheld each year since sanctions were introduced in the 1960s. That is the basic distinction that we hope the Government are making in clause 3. We do not believe that there should be an amnesty for a company that is possibly subject to prosecution or investigation, because that is different from giving an amnesty to an individual who has committed illegal acts on either side.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will confirm that clause 3 does not give such a broad amnesty to sanctions busting and that our amendments are, therefore, unnecessary. Secondly, in the process of doing so, we want from him a clear, categorical statement. As I said during the debate on Second Reading, we would be very aggrieved if there were a hole-and-corner approach to this matter, as a result of which we received an answer to a written question from the Attorney-General, either on Christmas Eve or even in the next few days.
In taking the Bill through all its stages, hon. Members can rightly expect the right hon. Gentleman to say here and now exactly what will be the Government's position in relation to firms that are subject to investigation or possible prosecution under United Kingdom sanctions legislation.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I hope that I can help the Committee. First, I should make it clear that the statement to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary referred had nothing to do with this Bill but was rather to do with an amenesty in Rhodesia that will be granted in due course.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) is partly right about clause 3. He is right in saying that it does not relate to companies that have broken sanctions. But it does not even relate to individuals who have broken sanctions. In other words, it has nothing at all to do with sanctions. There is power to provide an amnesty for sanctions offences in section 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Act that we passed a few weeks ago, but clause 3 of this Bill has no application at all.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be nothing hole-and-corner about this. Following the lifting of sanctions measures this evening, the Government will consider the question of amnesty offences and a statement will be made.


As I said, the matter does not arise under this Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I listened with some care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. He referred specifically to the Bill and its provisions, but he did not really answer the substantive point that is contained in the amendment and the new clause.
I do not intend to rehearse the whole episode of sanctions breaking or go into any great detail about the Bingham report, except to say that the report showed clearly that sanctions were broken and that parts of the report prepared by Mr. Bingham were not published because it was felt that the material in them was prejudicial to the possibility of any prosecutions that may take place, and therefore, presumably, it was thought that they might affect the possibility of a fair trial.
We certainly understood that to be so at the time and welcomed the possibility that the matter had been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but it seems that when sanctions were in force the big fish got away. They were never taken to court. It was only the small fry who were actually prosecuted and sentenced for breaking sanctions. I hope that we shall not say that there is to be a complete amnesty for those who broke sanctions.
On Monday I tabled a question to the Attorney-General, asking when he expected action by the DPP on matters referred to him arising out of the Bingham report. The answer was
I shall be making a statement to the House as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 10 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 429.]
We shall await that statement.
The new clause is a very modest proposal.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he can have taken in what I said. This clause in the Bill has no application to what he is talking about at all. Therefore, his new clause is quite unnecessary. There is no amnesty, or anything relating to amnesty, about sanctions offences in the Bill at all. Therefore, the new clause and the amendment are totally redundant.

Mr. Hughes: There are two things that

I would say in response to that. First, the new clause is in order. It has been accepted for debate. The fact that there is nothing in the Bill, in clause 3, that covers the point that I am making does not mean that a new clause cannot be added to the Bill. I am perfectly in order in discussing the amendment that has been selected. Not only is it technically in order; I am arguing that there ought to be added to the Bill a clause that specifically takes care of the points that I am trying to make.
The Minister shakes his head, but I hope that he will allow me to deploy the arguments, listen to them and, perhaps, provide some answers to the questions that will be raised.
The proposal in the new clause is very modest. Looking at it, I am surprised at how modest it is. I am not asking in the new clause that there should be no immunity from prosecution for all time. I am not saying that if in, say, 12 months or two years evidence becomes available of a major breach of sanctions about which we do not now know, such a case should be proceeded with. I am not asking for that, although I am not ruling it out. All that I am saying is that the restriction on immunity that I propose to add to the Bill refers specifically to those cases already reported to the DPP.
We must not underestimate the seriousness of the breach of sanctions. Those who broke the sanctions regulations were collaborating with and allying themselves with the illegal Smith regime, who were prosecuting the war against the people of Zimbabwe, and they bear a very heavy responsibility for the period in which UDI was able to stand up. They were the people who made sure that many lives were lost.
I have no great expectations that the Lord Privy Seal will accept the new clause, but I would be much happier, as would my hon. Friends, if we got a specific assurance that prosecution, or non-prosecution, will be decided purely on the basis of law. The information is before the DPP. Whether or not he decides to prosecute ought to be a question of law. The Attorney-General ought to decide whether the prosecution is to go ahead purely on the basis of law. If the facts sustain the possibility that a prosecution will succeed, it ought to be proceeded


with and not be set aside on the basis of some political decision.
11 pm
I hope that we can have that categoric assurance from the Lord Privy Seal. It is the least he could give, because I hope that what I have always understood to be the principle of British justice remains. It is sometimes called into question by others, but I hope that the principle, as I understand it, that prosecutions are taken out on the basis of the evidence and of the law and are not influenced by political decisions still stands. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us that assurance I believe that he will go a long way in satisfying us that it is not the intention of the Government suddenly to decide that they will offer a total amnesty for all those who broke sanctions.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I do not wish to delay the Committee. The Lord Privy Seal said that he believes that the new clause is otiose, in that it does not relate to the rest of the Bill. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has been trying to make is that that is not an argument for excluding such provisions from this Bill if there remains an area of concern about what may happen in the matter of prosecutions for sanctions busting.

Sir Ian Gilmour: That is not my argument against the new clause. The new clause says that the Bill should not confer immunity. If, as I have told the House, the Bill does not confer immunity, that must surely be quite a strong argument against the new clause.

Mr. Whitehead: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman is highly amused at his own logic. We are appalled by it, because we feel that the House must have a certain latitude in discussing both the former Bill and this one tonight in the brief time before it passes into law. We feel that it should be possible to say quite specifically, through the agency of this Bill, that there should be no immunity from prosecution. I accept that no such immunity is granted, but the right hon. Gentleman must grant a certain meed of suspicion to the Opposition after all these years. That meed of suspicion is precisely that we feel that there may well be some

announcement—in the not too distant future—that there will be no further prosecutions and that the whole regrettable episode of sanctions busting has been swept away and forgotten. We feel that the Government might say: "Let us start with a clean sheet. It is better not to go back over these things."
That is precisely why we wish to go back over these things. We regard the sanctions busting period as a very shabby episode. It is an episode from which neither of the parties that have formed successive Administrations emerges with great credit. Looking back at some of the things that happened in the 1960s, that was certainly true of the Government of those days.
Through the agency of this new clause we hope to insert an assertion that, whatever happens consequent on independence, the possibility of prosecution will still be open of those who were involved in sanctions busting whether they were major employees in the big companies which have been named—and since the matter is before the DPP I do not propose to go into details—or the smaller fry who were engaged in the same operation in Rhodesia directly or in Mozambique and South Africa. This is my only point of substance. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is?"] It is a good thing to be able to make one point of substance in three minutes at this late hour. The people involved in sanctions busting were, in part, citizens of the State of Rhodesia, under the illegal Government, who had dual nationality or who came and went between Rhodesia and South Africa. Those are the people, as well as the big time sanctions busters here, we intend to see brought to justice if possible.
It seems to me that some of those people will be able to point to the legislation going through the House tonight and say, in relation to all the immunities that are being granted, that all they were doing in the 1960s was upholding the Government of the illegal Smith regime. They could say that everyone else had been cleared of any possibility of prosecution for upholding the treasonable regime in Rhodesia. They could ask why they had not been cleared and say that all they were doing was a little trading on the side.
It is to withhold from such people the comfort of an assurance that they may get away with it as others have done that we have introduced this new clause tonight. For that reason I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will take the argument seriously.

Mr. Dobson: I support the new clause. The Government owe this clause, if not to the House, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The secret part of the Bingham report, together with the published part, was referred to the DPP as long ago as September 1978. Since then several hon. Members and I have made inquiries about progress. We inquired of the Attorney-General how long the DPP had taken to consider the cases that had come to court. Unfortunately, the DPP's records are so poor that he was unable to supply that information. He is not able to tell us how long, on average, it takes his office to consider and report on any matters drawn to his attention.
We are in danger of bringing the DPP's office into gross disrepute. The other cases of sanction busting that reached the courts did not involve collusion by Government officials and Ministers. From the Bingham report we know that sanctions busting did involve collusion by successive British Governments and Ministers. It is invidious that the only known case of sanctions busting that involved politicians and was referred to the DPP took so long to consider that it was continued for more than a year and passed the time when the Government decided to grant an amnesty to politicians who were once Members of the House or Government officials who, for all we know, are still in the employ of the Government.
The Lord Privy Seal owes it to the DPP and to anyone who strives to uphold the reputation of British Government institutions to ensure that the DPP is not brought into disrepute. He must assure us that no squalid fix was made, because the Bingham report appears to reveal such a fix. I hope that when the DPP makes his recommendation we shall discover the contents of the secret part of the Bingham report. It would be unfortunate if the DPP were to make a recommendation to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General were to make

a decision on the basis of information that was not known to the rest of us, particularly about the only known case of sanctions busting involving people who have held ministerial positions and who still hold distinguished posts in the Civil Service.

Mr. James Lamond: Amendment No. 13 and new clause No. 1 must be in order, otherwise they would not have been selected. The Lord Privy Seal argues that they are unnecessary because nothing in the Bill suggests that immunity from prosecutions will be granted to anyone who may be subject to criminal proceedings for breach of sanctions. Perhaps it is the Lord Privy Seal's opinion and that of those who drafted the Bill that the provisions cannot be used in that way.
We have all had experience of Bills passing through the House and becoming Acts, believing that they did certain things, but when they reach the courts—this is particularly true of trade union legislation—they are interpreted in an entirely different way from that intended by the House. Nothing that the Minister who presents a Bill may say about what it is meant to do is noted by the courts. The lawyers and the judges look at it and interpret it as they see fit.

Sir Ian Gilmour: What the hon. Gentleman says is true, but if he doubts what I say will he tell me and the Committee to which part of clause 3 he thinks that could possibly apply?

Mr. Lamond: I have already said that I am prepared to accept that the Lord Privy Seal and the draftsman of the Bill believe that they have covered all the loopholes. If I were able to point to a loophole immediately I would do so, but I cannot. But that does not mean that no loophole exists. Those more practised in the law than I will examine the Bill in great detail, and it is possible that they will put an interpretation on it that will allow a case to be dropped.

Mr. Whitehead: If my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) looks at clause 3 (2) (c), he will see there a reference to conspiracy. That might be interpreted—particularly by a Rhodesian citizen—as a reference that would get him out of anything in which he had


been involved in connection with sanctions busting.

Mr. Lamond: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has pointed to a loophole. No one can be sure that no loophole exists unless we add the amendment or the new clause submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and a number of my hon. Friends.
If it does not change the Bill, why not accept the amendment and make sure that there is no loophole? The new clause and the amendment specifically mention the cases about which we are anxious and which the right hon. Gentleman agrees, apparently, should not be given immunity. Why not make the matter clear so that anyone trying to interpret the Act in a court will know exactly what we mean?
If anyone who has been involved in sanctions busting is given immunity under the Bill, or Act as it will be, we shall weaken one of the few weapons available to the United Nations. I know that there are many arguments put forward by hon. Members that sanctions are never effective as a weapon. Examples in the distant past are quoted. I agree that sanctions were not very effective in our attempts to bring down the illegal regime in Rhodesia, but some countries still want to use sanctions rather than military force. We have all seen in the press recently that the United States Government are contemplating the use of sanctions against Iran. American officials have been to Britain, I understand, to ask how we would react to that. It might be a good idea to try to help the United States solve its difficulties in Iran by assisting it in applying sanctions.
If we give sanctions busters immunity from prosecution, we shall make sure that any future attempt by any country to involve us in sanctions against a third country will fail, because we will have shown that at the end of the day we are prepared to wipe the slate clean on sanctions busting. Therefore, to protect ourselves in future, it would be a wise precaution to make clear in the Bill that there will be no immunity from prosecution for those who have taken part in sanctions busting.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will consider the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends. I accept that it is not his intention to give an amnesty for sanctions breaking, but the courts are not bound by any opinion held by the Minister or expressed in the House. They can interpret the Act as they wish.
It is possible—I put it no higher than that—that one could argue that a breach of sanctions comes within the effects of clause 3(2)(a), (c) or (d). If one takes (a) and (c) together, they say that there is an amnesty in respect of any act related to
the purported declaration of independence…
and
any act…preparatory or incidental to any act falling within paragraph (a) or (b)".
Clause 3(2)(b) refers to
the purported making of constitutional provision for Southern Rhodesia
It is arguable that an act that is incidental either to the declaration of independence or to the making of a constitution is covered by the amnesty conferred in the clause.
If one takes clause 3(2)(d), the argument is even stronger. I do not necessarily say that it would be accepted, but the possibility is certainly there. Paragraph (d) says:
any act which would have been lawful if the instruments mentioned in paragraph (b) had been lawfully made".
Therefore, it could be argued that if one provided goods for someone in Rhodesia under the unlawful constitution, and the contract would have been lawful had the constitution been lawful, there was not a breach of sanctions. I do not necessarily accept that that would be accepted by the courts, but if the Lord Privy Seals feels so strongly that he never intended to give that effect or to confer such immunity, why does he not agree to our amendment and avoid any possible doubt?

Sir. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) said that we owed it to the Director of Public Prosecutions to accept the new clause. We do not owe it to him,


because it would not have the slightest effect on him. The new clause says:
No immunity from prosecution shall arise under this Act".
As I have already explained to the Committee, no immunity arises under the Bill.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) concedes that he put forward a tortuous legal argument. If he looks at the clause more closely, I think that he will agree that that is not an argument that he would like to make in a court of law. There is a more compelling argument, which I put forward in my first intervention. There is already in British law a provision for amnesty for these offences. That is the Act that we passed last month. What on earth is the point of trying to prevent immunity from prosecution being granted under this Bill when the power to grant it is already given under another Act? This amendment is plainly redundant on both grounds.
I come to the serious point of substance. Of course, I undertake that decisions on these matters will be made on legal grounds. The Attorney-General, as the Law Officer, has particular responsibilities which have been clearly placed on him ever since the Campbell case in 1924. Therefore, it follows that the decision on the cases that worry hon. Members will naturally be made on legal rather than on political grounds. The Attorney-General told the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in a written answer on Monday that he would make a statement on these matters in due course. I emphasise that it will he a statement, not a written answer. There will be nothing hole-and-corner about it.
That is the point of substance. I hope that the Opposition will agree that the rest is riot a point of substance. There is no amnesty for offences under the Bill. There is a potentiality for an amnesty under an existing Act.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that prosecutions by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the breaking of sanctions will proceed?

Sir I. Gilmour: I said that the Attorney-General, who in a sense is responsible for the Director of Public Prosecutions, would make a statement to the House. He will base his decision,

as he must in view of the responsibility of his office, on legal grounds. That must be sufficient.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It is well known that the power of the Attorney-General to prosecute is circumscribed by the prima facie evidence against the accused, plus whether he thinks it is desirable in the public interest to take the prosecution. That was confirmed in the Attorney-General's latest case before Lord Denning, that of Gouriet.
In those circumstances, it is arguable for the Attorney to say, when Rhodesia has returned to legality, that in the public interest he does not wish to proceed. It would be desirable for the Committee to reflect the opinion held by the Opposition that those prosecutions should continue. It is in the public interest that they should do so.

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that many points are arguable tonight. He is pretty liberal in his attitude to what is arguable.
The Attorney-General will make his statement. It is a matter for him. The question does not arise under the Bill. However important the Opposition think the matter—no doubt it is important—the decision of the Attorney-General will be announced to the House by him in a statement. The matter is remote from the Bill and does not arise under it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Obviously we are disappointed at the response so far. I understand from what the Lord Privy Seal said that the decision whether to prosecute will be taken on the basis of the available evidence. The phrase "within the law" may mean anything. It may mean within the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. I hope that the Minister based his remarks on the normal legal judgment that would apply to evidence.
I do not complain if the right hon. Gentleman seeks to put the point that the new clause is defective in its drafting. In the past I have refused amendments on those grounds. I do not know the Minister's intentions about the Report stage. Perhaps on Report the Opposition could submit a manuscript amendment which would have the effect of amending the Southern Rhodesia Act that we passed a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Rowlands: I understand that the Lord Privy Seal is saying that there is


nothing in the Bill that gives immunity to firms or individuals who are subject to investigation or reports to the DPP in relation to breaking sanctions. The Lord Privy Seal nods in agreement. That is confirmed.
The first part of the argument is whether, despite that, it is worthwhile adding amendment No. 13. Although the Minister said that the proposal was redundant, many pieces of legislation have a catch-all final subsection which makes doubly sure that there are no loopholes. That is frequently done. Indeed, clause 3(4) looks pretty like one. Irrespective of what went before, that subsection was added to make doubly sure. We are suggesting the addition of a subsection (5) to make doubly sure that the statements made by the Lord Privy Seal are well and truly enshrined in the Bill.
The second point, which has been pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and others, is not so much in relation to the Bill as to the Government's intention about outstanding cases. The Lord Privy Seal said that the Attorney-General would behave in a propor legal manner in reviewing the cases and that political considerations would not come into it. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York about that aspect of his judgment—called the public interest—is also relevant.
The Lord Privy Seal said that we should be discussing not this Bill but the Government's powers to make orders under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, presumably to clear the decks and to wipe the slate clean. There is no power in the 1979 Act to clear the decks.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I said that there was the power. I did not say that we would use it.

Mr. Rowlands: There is the power, but the right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Government intend to use it I suggest that the assurance given to us by the Lord Privy Seal is not worth much if, whatever the Attorney-General does in respect of existing law, the Government subsequently come forward with an order under the Southern

Rhodesia Act 1979 to clear the decks and wipe the slate clean in respect of those who are subject to investigation and possible prosecution under our sactions legislation.
It may be that the amendment and the new clause are redundant, according to the Lord Privy Seal, but we have not had a categorical statement from the Government of their intention with regard to outstanding cases. In our view, the Government should not wipe the slate clean as regards the acts of individuals in Rhodesia or, indeed, in the United Kingdom.
We shall watch with great suspicion and vigilance every order that comes forward under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, because one of them could be the order to which we object most strongly. If the right hon. Gentleman brings forward such an order there will be the strongest possible objection by the Opposition, for the reasons that we have advanced.
We have not had the assurance that we seek. The Attorney-General's traditional legal position since 1924, and so on, is scarcely of any relevance. The key issue is whether the Government intend to exercise the power to bring forward an order under the 1979 Act to wipe the slate clean. We have not had a declaration of intent from the Lord Privy Seal. However, we expect him to come to the Dispatch Box to make such a declaration as soon as possible, not in any hole-and-corner way. He has given us that assurance. Therefore, as we shall return—

Mr. Robert Hughes: I have looked at section 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. The expression "amnesty from prosecution for sanctions breaking" does not appear anywhere.

Mr. Rowlands: It would be all the better if it were not in the Act. I suspect that the Lord Privy Seal is not well versed in and briefed on that matter. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is capable of pointing to which part of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 is relevant to the points that we have made. Is it section 3(1)(b)(ii)?

Hon. Members: Call for the Attorney-General.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking the advice of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Rowlands: We need not call for him, because he is here.

Sir Ian Gilmour: It is section 31(1)(b)(ii).

Mr. Rowlands: We shall watch with great interest and vigilance any of the orders produced under that subsection.
Does the Lord Privy Seal or the Attorney-General wish to elaborate on that sub-paragraph, which says
in connection with the repeal, revocation, expiration or lapse of any statutory provision relating to sanctions"?
When we debated that Bill, because the House was treated in a shameful fashion we probably did not consider it in as much detail as we should have done. We took clause 3, as it was, to mean the removal or reimposition of sanctions. We thought that it was the provision to enable the Government, if everything went dreadfully wrong in the interim period, to reimpose sanctions. It was in terms entirely of lifting or unravelling sanctions, as well as the possibility of reimposing them in extreme circumstances, that we read that sub-paragraph. That shows that the House should not rush legislation through.
There will be a terrible row if the Government attempt to wipe the slate clean for those who have been cheating on sanctions or who have been subject to investigation and possible prosecution under the existing law. That is a different matter from the commission of illegal acts by individuals in Rhodesia. We are talking not of that but of cynical, deceitful acts carried out for monetary gain by companies which knew that they were breaking the law. That has nothing to do with the political passions which have rent Rhodesia and which should have the amnesty provided by the Bill.
In view of the assurance that the Bill does not give any such immunity I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but we shall certainly return to the issue in the very near future, and we expect the Lord Privy Seal to do so, too.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I understand that if a Bill is unamended in Committee there is no Report stage, and it proceeds directly from the Committee stage to Third Reading. An important point has arisen out of the debate.
The Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 contains provisions for anyone, any company, anybody or anything to be granted immunity from prosecution if such an intention had been in the Government's mind, it would have been proper for them, when drafting the Bill, to have included a clause which specified the possibility of an amnesty in the way in which we now gather the Act does.
My point of order is that the Government have shown no willingness so far to accept any amendments. There is a distinct possibility that the Bill will finish its Committee stage without being amended. In those circumstances, if I or my hon. Friends can draft a suitable manuscript amendment to schedule 3, which deals with repeals, will you accept it? It would seek to repeal part of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. I ask you to consider whether that would be in order.

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Member for raising his point of order. I shall have to see the manuscript amendment before I can make any decision on it.

Mr. Whitehead: I do not wish to delay the Committe unduly, but this a serious matter. Conservative Members who are here to keep the Committee should remember that we are rushing legislation through tonight. There is a good reason for doing that, but I think that it is worth while asking the Attorney-General to intervene and explain precisely how an immunity provision is explained in the legislation that is being raised in this debate.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Would the Committee be assisted, and the purpose of the Government made plain, if the Attorney-General were to say precisely that there will be no immunity in relation to the matters under consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the


moment and that he will take his decision on prosecution on the evidence and on the criterion of the public interest, which is the way in which Attorney-Generals normally take a decision about prosecutions? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to give us the assurance that no immunity is intended, I am sure that the whole of the argument would fall.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but if he is referring to Bingham I can deal with that.

The Chairman: Order. I think that this should be dealt with on the Question, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: If the Committee is asking me whether I intend to make a statement on the matters referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions as a result of the Bingham report, regardless of any immunity or amnesty that may or may not be granted under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, I can give that assurance. That will be done as soon as possible and will be independent of any amnesty that may be considered by the Government.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that statement because, as he will have seen from new clause 1, which was not moved, that is precisely what we are trying to achieve. I asked the Lord Privy Seal for an assurance that the decision of the DPP would be related to the evidence under the normal legal procedures for deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to proceed. If that is what the Attorney-General is saying tonight, I am grateful, but I want as clear clarification as I can get.

The Attorney-General: The statement that I shall make—I hope very soon; I am sorry that it has been delayed—in respect of the decision of the DPP on matters referred to in Bingham is that it is not simply a question of sufficient evidence; there is the public interest aspect as well. It will be a decision that will be totally unrelated to any decision that the

Government may take about amnesty in respect of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO ZIMBABWE, AND SAVINGS

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 38, leave out paragraph 7.

The Chairman: With this we are to take amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 5, leave out paragraph 8.

Mr. Lyon: This is an amendment to remove paragraph 7 from the effect of the schedule. We have already passed clause 6, which makes the schedule have effect.
I am not arguing with the Chair, but I should have thought that we had jumped the gun. However, that matter having been ruled upon, my purpose, as I indicated in an intervention, is to raise the matter of registration. Because the Government have taken the decision, wrongly in my view, to remove Commonwealth status from Zimbabwe from the beginning of independence until the Government of Zimbabwe decide to come back into the Commonwealth, this affects the right of patrials of this country who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, this involves about 70,000 of the 150,000 people living in Zimbabwe who would be entitled to come to this country. If the Government had taken the course that I suggested, they would not be placed in this difficulty. There would be no risk to those 70,000 people. They would be patrial. The Under-Secretary would be right to say that all that he is doing is to reinstate the law as it was. I have always objected, as did everyone on the Opposition side, to section 2(1)(d) of the 1971 Act, which makes a person patrial even though he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and


colonies. We should now say that if the Government have taken this step it should not be reversed, to allow those 70,000 to enter in the 12 months following independence for Zimbabwe.
Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who has now left the Front Bench, said that he did not think that there were great immigration implications in this move, I am not sure that that is so. The Under-Secretary of State indicated that the earlier amendment might affect only a few hundred, and I accept that, but this amendment affects about 70,000 people.
If the Government elected in Zimbabwe in the course of these free and fair elections are a Government whom the whites in Rhodesia like, they may want to stay. If a Government are elected whom the whites do not like, they may want to move. Where will they move to? There are 150,000 who have the right to come here and not to go anywhere else. It is conceivable that South Africa, Australia or Canada may be willing to take them, but they would have to qualify under the immigration rules for entry in those countries. They would not have to qualify under any rules allowing them to come to this country because they have the status of patriality under the 1971 Act.
There is nothing that we can do about the 80,000 patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The only definition at the moment of British citizen is "British citizen". No one can take that away from them. That test was put in the 1971 Act to allow whites, but not blacks, to come in, and it is the nub of the racist case for the Act.
A lacuna has opened up because of the way in which the Government have drafted the Bill, and we ought to be careful about allowing it to be closed for 12 months for the 70,000 who can choose to stay if they like the look of the new Government or come here as partials—without even having to apply or qualify tinder the immigration rules.
11.45 pm
Only a week ago the Government passed the most nauseating, racially discriminatory rules in order to keep out 4,000 people, on the basis that they were primary immigrants—men who could take our jobs. What is to happen to the

70,000 whites who will be allowed to come here within the 12 months during which they have to exercise their rights under the schedule? Areas of Eastbourne and Bognor Regis will be swamped. Some Conservative Members may think that that will swell their majorities, but some of the expressions of political affiliation that I have heard from whites in Rhodesia lead me to think that there may be a substantial National Front vote there. Hon. Members will need to be careful about their seats.
I hope that all the 70,000 do not go to Reigate. I should not like to see the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) have to give up his seat to the National Front—though perhaps there would not be that much difference.

Mr. James Lomond: It would be a swing to the Left.

Mr. Lyon: There is a serious question about what we would do with 70,000 people who would want jobs and homes in this country and would therefore be in competition with those already living here. The lacuna has opened up and I do not believe that we should allow the Government's proposals to pass.

Mr. Luce: This is the second or third time that we have discussed the citizenship provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) seeks to raise again the question of the 70,000 people who, at the moment, have rights of entry into the United Kingdom on the ground of patriality. I can only reiterate my previous argument that the provisions are necessary because, until the Government of the new Zimbabwe decide to the contrary, that country will be outside the Commonwealth.
We are providing a year's grace in order to overcome what would otherwise be problems of individual hardship and to clarify and give a greater degree of certainty to the position of that category of people.
It is wrong to suggest that there is likely to be a massive panic and a massive exodus from Rhodesia. The purpose of the efforts of recent months, leading up to the Bill and the arrival of the Governor, has been to help to create conditions in which black and white people will feel that they want to stay in Zimbabwe, make a future there,


contribute to their country and share as equal citizens in its future.
I do not think that it helps to talk about the dangers of a massive exodus at a time when we are trying to achieve the very opposite. We wish to persuade as many as possible to stay in Rhodesia. If we do not provide for one year of grace, there could be created a greater degree of uncertainty and unease among the 70,000 during the next three months, during the pre-independence period. If they do not have adequate time to think about their future and to see how things settle, that could lead to a greater degree of unease about their position in Rhodesia and exacerbate the situation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to see that happen.
I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Question proposed, That this schedule be the third schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Dobson: I am advised by my hon., but not learned, Friends that this is the appropriate moment to advance my argument. In the debate on 12 November on the Southern Rhodesia Bill, No. 1, so to speak, which was rushed through the House of Commons—

Mr. James Lamond: Like this one.

Mr. Dobson: Yes, like this one. On 12 November I asked the Lord Privy Seal, in Hansard at column 1098, to give an undertaking that nothing in the Bill, or in consequential legislation flowing from it, would grant any indemnity or amnesty to anyone who had been breaking sanctions. In the right hon. Gentleman's reply—I refer to column 1099–he merely abused me for attacking the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Chairman: Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. He must address his remarks to the contents of schedule 3. We are not dealing with the

repeal of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.

Mr. Rowlands: The schedule repeals sections 3(4) and (5) of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.

The Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), and I invite him to continue.

Mr. Dobson: I believe that it is in order, Mr. Weatherill, to suggest that a further section should be included. If that is so, it seems appropriate to raise the matter now. I appreciate that in the earlier debate, when the negotiations at Lancaster House were at their height, or possibly depth, it was reasonable, and perhaps necessary, for the Lord Privy Seal, even if it was irritating for my right hon. and hon. Friends and for some of his hon. Friends, not to come clean on what was going on at the conference, and not to draw out in great detail matters that were then in dispute between the Government and the other parties to the conference.
Having been faced with that straightforward question, surely the right hon. Gentleman was under an obligation. If he now grins and says "You are too late in the No. 1 Bill to catch up with an amnesty on sanctions", I contend that be was honour bound during the passage of the No. 1 Bill to acknowledge, when asked the specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and myself, that it was the Government's intention that the No. 1 Bill when enacted would provide the power to grant an amnesty or indemnity in the circumstances that my hon. Friend and I had in mind. In those circumstances, it is appropriate for the Government to put forward an amendment to schedule 3 that will make it clear that that part of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 has been repealed. That is the only way in which the Lord Privy Seal can honourably discharge his duty to the Committee.

Mr. Rowlands: Further to that interesting point and to the fact that the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 has reared its head as a result of the Lord Privy Seal's earlier reply, will he tell us when, during the debate on that measure, he and his colleagues drew our attention to


fact that the provisions in clause 3(1)(b)(ii) cover that aspect?
Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the effect of repealing sections 3(4) and 3(5) of the Southern Rhodesia Act? If one reads sections 3(4) and 3(5) of that Act, one sees that they maintain four of the Orders in Council even though section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 has lapsed. Section 34(c) deals with Southern Rhodesian matrimonial jurisdiction. What will happen to that when that order is repealed? The fourth order that was covered by subsection (4) was the immunity order for those attending the Lancaster House conference. If that conference continues but the Zimbabwe Bill becomes an Act, will immunity be withdrawn? What provision in the Zimbabwe Bill maintains immunity for those attending that conference? If the Zimbabwe Bill is enacted before that conference finishes, what provisions will apply? Section 3(4) will be abolished as a result of the Bill. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us what will happen to those four orders for which special provision was made in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979? What part of the Zimbabwe Bill will cover those four orders?
A part from any matrimonial problems that may arise as a result of the abolition of section 3(4)(c) of the 1979 Act, what will happen if section 3(4)(d) is abolished? That provided immunity to those attending the Lancaster House conference. If that has been abolished, where do party delegates to that conference obtain immunity?

The Attorney-General: I did not raise a point of order on the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), but his objection concerns section 3(4) and (5) of the 1979 Act. Those sections were provided to protect, in particular, British citizens. For example, it protected those who had obtained divorces in Southern Rhodesia after the Adams v. Adams case of 1970, which created an odd position. A woman had succeeded in a divorce action and been granted a decree nisi by a judge who had been appointed before UDI. In fact, that divorce was not recognised. She was in this country with children, the unfairness of that was recognised, and a special order was laid by the then Foreign Secretary, now my right hon. and

noble Friend Lord Home. That was one of the orders that was kept going in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 until we could get the Zimbabwe Bill through.
However, the hon. Gentleman's objection goes back to the immunity which relates to the repeals in schedule 3. Those repeals are merely those designed to protect those who might otherwise have suffered unfairly because they had no direct connection—for example, in the Southern Rhodesia (Matrimonial Jurisdiction) Order—with Rhodesia, or to protect the immunity of persons attending the Lancaster House conference. Those have been provided for in the present Bill and were, therefore, properly repealed in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.

Mr. Rowlands: Exactly where in the Zimbabwe Bill is the immunity for persons at the conference?

The Attorney-General: The immunity is provided, as I think the Committee has been told, in clause 3, where one finds that there is now an amnesty in respect—

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Why are people being cast out of the Strangers' Gallery?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry, but I did not quite understand the purpose of the interruption. I am always sad to lose any audience, whether here or anywhere else, but probably none of my constitutents is there.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil will appreciate that the immunity is contained in clause 3(2), but the whole purpose, as I think my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said, is to wipe the slate clean domestically within the confines of Rhodesia.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Winnick: There should be no doubt that many of us remain unhappy with the Bill. Had the Lord Privy Seal been more willing to accept some of the


amendments, I believe that he would have gone some way towards satisfying Labour Members. I refer particularly to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) regarding parliamentary approval before the Order in Council is made. However, there was no willingness to accept any of the amendments, and that is rather unfortunate.
The Government must satisfy more than this House. International opinion will be very concerned to see that if a ceasefire takes place fair and free elections occur, and above all that there is complete fairness in the way in which political arrangements are carried out after a ceasefire.
It is also extremely important that the United Kingdom is not seen as taking the side of one of the parties if a ceasefire is duly agreed upon. There remains a great deal of suspicion beyond these Benches, throughout Africa and Asia, that there is an inbuilt sympathy on the part of the British Government for the Salisbury authorities. Therefore, it is extremely important that if a ceasefire is agreed upon the elections occur as freely and as fairly as possible in all circumstances.
Britain has suffered a great deal of criticism during the 14 years of UDI. It is possible that some of this criticism was not always justified. My right hon. Friend said that we had to bear in mind that since 1923 Rhodesia had been a self-governing colony and that we did not have the responsibility or the power. That may well be so, and I agree with my right hon. Friend, but some of the criticism that has been levelled at us, and certainly that over sanctions busting, was more than justified. Therefore, when historians come to write of the period from 1965 to the present, and the next few months, I do not think that we shall be altogether happy about Britain's role under successive Governments since UDI in November 1965.
Above all, if a ceasefire is implemented, we must ensure that in the remaining months, we carry out our responsibility in the fairest possible way and that we do not allow our conduct to be such that it leads to more international criticism that would be justified.
Although there has been no Division on the Bill's Second Reading and it is unlikely that there will be one on Third Reading either, many of us remain rather unhappy over the whole position.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall not detain the House for long.
The future of the new Zimbabwe is now clearly mapped out in respect of its Government. I think that all of us would wish that we had no need to return to debate the issue whether independence should be conferred upon Zimbabwe because things will have gone so well that we shall all be delighted at the turn of events. Nevertheless, we have expressed reservations during the passage of the Bill. I regret that the Lord Privy Seal's answers did very little to reassure us, because he found it very difficult to address himself to the points under discussion.
Instead of the right hon. Gentleman formally moving the Third Reading, I had hoped that he would take the opportunity to reply to the serious challenge made to him about his failure to reply to the substantive point about immunity. It is clear from Hansard that he was specifically asked by two Members of the House to give an assurance that no immunity would arise out of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. He declined to answer. I am sure that he did not deliberately mislead the House, but it is clear that the House was, in fact, misled. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity to make clear how far the intention goes to link this Bill and the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 concerning policy on amnesty and immunity. It is clear that the two matters are related.
If all goes well, the Government will take one attitude. If things go badly, they may take a different view. The Lord Privy Seal should not have regarded this Bill and the one that came before it as raising an issue on which one could take the view that has bedevilled this House for years and during the whole of the period of sanctions, namely, that whilst it was not the Government's purpose to lie to the House, it was their purpose just not to tell the truth.
I hope that we shall at some later stage in this legislation find glaring loopholes


in what it appears to do compared with the Government's expressed intention or the Government's intention not expressed.
If we wish Parliament to have a reputation for integrity, and if we wish to seek to redress the loss of integrity which Parliament, through successive Governments, has brought about for this country by its behaviour over the Rhodesia issue we could have no better opportunity to do so than during our final acts in dealing with this matter in this House. The Government should try to re-establish our sense of integrity by not trying to slip things through the House without making clear their intentions. I hope that if we ever discuss the independence of Zimbabwe again it will be a matter for congratulation that we have finally laid the past to rest. However, I fear that that will not be the position.
I trust that the Government in their dealings at Lancaster House will not negotiate on the basis of trying to slip things through. The penalty for that will not be paid by this House. The penalty for failure, for not being straight and honest at the Lancaster House negotiations, will be paid in the lives and the blood of the people of Zimbabwe. They have paid enough already. I hope that they do not have to pay any more.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The last thing of which the Government can be accused is duplicity. If any country wishes to take up the question of sanctions busting—a point raised a number of times—it should do so with those companies which have busted sanctions on a far wider scale—and with far more Government knowledge—than have companies in this country.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Which countries?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asks which countries. If he looks at the United Nations sanctions committee report on some of the Eastern European countries which have been involved in trade with Rhodesia he might ask himself how those countries, with State enterprises, can be brought before some international court or whether they have been so brought up to the time of the legality of Rhodesia.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley: If it will be useful.

Mr. Dobson: I hope that it will be useful. I believe that it is thoroughly reprehensible that all the States that were involved in trading with the illegal regime should have done that, but I think that it must be accepted that the most reprehensible of them is Britain. It was our sovereign territory that was in rebellion against us. It was at our request that the rest of the world imposed United Nations sanctions. We promoted sanctions and we went against them. It is no excuse for successive British Governments, who have dealt with this matter so pathetically at times and so perfidiously at others, to say that the East Europeans, the United States of America, the French and the USSR—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatberill): Order. The hon. Member must not make a speech.

Mr. Bottomley: I revert to the Third Reading. It is worth saying that I have been behind the efforts of the Government on Rhodesia, and occasionally in front of them. I hope that I have not caused too much difficulty to the Government spokesmen on foreign affairs.
It would be too easy to start listing the possible sources of instability and continued conflict. It is more important that we make sure that everything possible is done to ensure that the initiative that has taken place is not broken on the anvil of intransigent Rhodesian politics during the election campaign after independence.
I hope that we can sweep away all the consequences—sanctions busting or otherwise—of the years of UDI. The last thing that I should like to see after 14 years of failed initiatives is Britain being drawn into fighting a guerrilla war. The only way in which peace will come, and the only way in which the elections can be free and fair, is if the fighting is stopped. That requires effort from all sides. It is probably true that the constitution gives total satisfaction to nobody. However, the spirit of compromise at Lancaster House can be carried forward to Rhodesia.
There are some points that I want to make on the transitional period but I shall keep them for the order that is to follow this debate. My final remark on the Bill, which I welcome, is that the


Government must not allow the remarkable achievements of the negotiating table to be placed in jeopardy through half-hearted measures on the ground. I hope that united support for the Third Reading will ensure that the Bill gives the lead and the opportunity to Rhodesia that it has needed not only for the last 14 or 15 years but for the last 55.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is sad that the Third Reading should be dominated by sanctions busting and the Bingham report, but that does not mean that I think that hon. Members should not deal with the matter. We are doing something that is important. I understand that the Attorney-General gave a specific undertaking that, although the amnesty in the Bill refers to those within the territory of Southern Rhodesia, that does not prevent the DPP from prosecuting British citizens in Britain who have engaged in sanctions breaking. If that is so, we have no complaint.
I do not wish to delay the House. We have been over the arguments. We have watched the Lancaster House talks, without always knowing what was happening. This matter is unlikely to return to the House. We must wait and pray, and hope that it works. I certainly hope that it does.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I do not want the sour comments of some Opposition Members to be characteristic of the Bill's passage. This is the last and perhaps the most difficult example of Britain bringing a colony to independence. It would not be right for that to happen without paying tribute to all those involved in bringing that about over such a long period. Some Opposition Members have overlooked that a large proportion of the Rhodesian people were against UDI. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was?"] Hon. Members show their ignorance if they do not know that. Many of them, including at least one judge, were against UDI. He courageously and honourably resigned and left the country so that he need have nothing to do with what was happening. Too often do we overlook that there was considerable opposition and that little could be done about it.
We should praise the Government for having done what so many Governments failed to do. We should praise the parties involved for their sense of responsibility and conciliation. We should also praise the front-line States. Nigeria, through its representative at the Lancaster House talks, Alhaji Maitama Stile, has exercised considerable influence and given friendly persuasive advice and support to those who wanted this desirable conclusion. We should all wish "God speed" to Zimbabwe.

Mr. Maxton: I did not intend to speak, but the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) accused my hon. Friends of making sour remarks. It is not justifiable to say that those remarks were sour. As the official Opposition, we have a duty to examine all legislation and make legitimate criticisms of it. That is not being sour. More importantly, we have some distrust of the processes by which the legislation is being carried out. We have good reason to distrust those who have been in power in Rhodesia for the past 14 years. They have not given up power willingly or graciously. They were forced to do so.
We also have some distrust not so much of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench but of some hon. Members on the Government Back Benches. We can justly say that if the Labour Government had reached this sort of agreement with all the parties eight months ago those Conservatives would have accused us of selling out the white Rhodesians. Now they are all standing up and praising the Government Front Bench for the deal that has been made. That makes us distrustful of the agreement that has been reached. We distrust the people who have supported the Smith regime for 14 years in the House.
We have been consistent in trying to seek an agreement to which all parties would agree. We are concerned to see that the majority in Zimbabwe get a fair deal and fair elections and are not victimised following the elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTION (INTERIM PROVISIONS) ORDER 1979

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.
The order is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses within 28 days. Articles 1 and 3 of the order came into operation on 4 December. The remainder of the order was brought into effect today by a notice signed by my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The purpose of the order, as its title clearly indicates, is to make temporary provision for the government of Southern Rhodesia. It does so in terms which have been agreed by all the parties at the constitutional conference, and were spelt out in the document on the pre-independence arrangements.
The order creates the offices of Governor and Deputy Governor of Southern Rhodesia. As the House has already been informed, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Soames has been appointed by Her Majesty to be the Governor of Southern Rhodesia. The Deputy Governor is Sir Antony Duff, deputy to the permanent secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has played a leading part in the negotiations at the constitutional conference.
The order confers full legislative powers in Southern Rhodesia on the Governor. He will be able to make laws by ordinance. He will also have the power to continue existing laws with such modifications as he thinks fit, and to validate transactions entered into during the period since 11 November 1965. The Governor's first ordinance, which sets out in greater detail how he will exercise his powers, will be published shortly in Salisbury. So also will a second ordinance, setting out the functions of the election commissioner and his staff and establishing the Election Council, in accordance with the arrangements agreed at the conference for the pre-independence elections. I shall arrange for copies of these ordinances to be placed in the Library of the House.

While the legislative power conferred upon the Governor is very extensive, my right honourable and noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made clear at the constitutional conference that the power will not be used to make changes in Rhodesia which are properly the business of an elected Government. The Governor's role will be to organise elections and maintain the administration of the country on a caretaker basis.
The order also confers upon the Governor full executive authority in Southern Rhodesia, and requires all officers and authorities in Rhodesia to obey his instructions. Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues will not exercise ministerial powers during the Governor's period of office. This provision is crucial to the implementation of the pre-independence arrangements agreed at the constitutional conference. It will give the Governor the authority with which to ensure the impartial administration of the country during the elections and the implementation of the ceasefire. At the same time, it recognises that he will have to work through the existing administration and police.
As the House knows, the Government have taken the view—and this has been accepted by the parties at the conference—that there is no practical alternative in this brief period to using the existing services. It will be for the Government of independent Zimbabwe to decide on the future structure of the services of the State.
The order also vests in the Governor the prerogative of mercy. During the pre-independence period no sentences of death can be carried out unless it be confirmed by the Governor. It would not be in accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government that executions should take place.
Finally, the order provides that the rights and liabilities of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, including the pre-UDI debts and liabilities, remain enforceable.
I shall not detain the House at this late hour by repeating the reasons which have led the Government to decide to appoint a Governor for Southern Rhodesia. These were set out fully during the debate on the Southern Rhodesia Act, in subsequent statements and again


in my speech on the Second Reading of the Zimbabwe Bill today. The constitutional responsibility for bringing Rhodesia to independence rests with Britain. It has been agreed by the parties and by the Commonwealth that there should be elections under our authority. To ensure that all parties can take part on an equal footing, that authority must extend not only to the elections but also over the whole administration of the country. This order confers the powers which enable a British Governor to carry out the responsibilities laid upon him under the agreements reached at the constitutional conference. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: I shall be brief. This order gives power to the Governor in Salisbury, and now that the Salisbury Parliament has dissolved itself and Rhodesia has returned to the status of a colony it is inevitable that the Governor must be equipped with the necessary powers to govern the country in the period up to the elections and the formation of the new Government. That is why he is given legislative and wide executive powers, such as the prerogative of mercy and control over the armed forces, which is specifically mentioned in article 5 (4) of the order. All these things are necessary, and the only questions that come to mind are those of the circumstances in which these powers should be exercised and when they should be assumed by the Governor in Salisbury.
In our view there is a missing component in the arrangements, and that is the ceasefire. We now have a situation in which the Governor controls the whole State apparatus of Rhodesia. At the same time there are men at arms throughout that country. About 90 per cent. of it is under martial law and there are substantial concentrations of men at arms near the frontiers of Mozambique and Zambia. These men will continue operations until they receive instructions from their leaders to operate a ceasefire.
The House must face the fact that a clash between the Rhodesian armed forces and the guerrilla army is a real and present danger. If that clash were to take place on any scale, Britain, through the Governor who is the Commander-in-

Chief, would be directly involved in the civil war.
Yesterday we tried to drive home the implications of that to the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister. We were right to do so before the Governor departed. I do not want to go over that again, if only because the Governor has already arrived in Rhodesia. I find it a matter for great criticism that this order, giving the Governor these powers, should have been put down for debate not before his departure but after his arrival. If ever there was a case of locking the stable door after the horse had bolted, this is it. I carefully read the reports of yesterday's exchanges both in this House and in the other place. I understand all the various factors in the Government's mind and how they operated upon them in coming to their decision to send Lord Soames to Salisbury yesterday.
The announcement, made, I think, by the Under-Secretary of State, that the supply of maize to Zambia is being resumed is an immediate and welcome development following the Governor's arrival there, as is the information—if I gleaned it rightly—that the martial courts are being suspended.
We must acknowledge that all this is indeed a gamble. We think that there are very grave risks. However, it may well be—indeed, I hope that it will be—that the Government are on a winning streak in their present gambling mood, that the ceasefire agreement will be quickly announced and that our anxieties will be shown to have been unjustified.
There is nothing more that I can say to the rear of the already departed horse.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is important to recognise that the Government—and presumably the Governor—intend to make as few changes as possible, and only those that will lead towards free and fair elections. It is right that there should be as many confidence-building measures as possible, because what happens between now, the elections and the achievement of full independence will affect the chances of a coup, counter-coup or stability after independence has been achieved.
I hope that the Governor, using these


powers, will do what he can to respond to the unprecedented appeal by the International Red Cross about the relief work and rebuilding necessary to help those who have suffered from a particularly wanton and persistently cruel war.
I am delighted to hear that the Governor has already started the maize transfers to Zambia, but food relief within Rhodesia is just as important. I hope that the people of Rhodesia directly under his care will find the risk of famine receding as the weeks go by with him in office.
The Governor will need to give attention under these powers to the problems of refugees both inside the country—those who flocked to the urban areas, many of whom have a miserable existence in the squatter settlements in and around the cities—and those in refugee camps outside the country's borders. I hope that during the election period and the time leading up to it operations will take place to enable people to return to their homes. It may be necessary for some of the protected villages to remain, but I hope that as many people in them as possible will be able to return home if they wish to do so. I trust that those who continue to live in them will be able to go about their business outside the camps, which they have not been able to do in the recent past.
I should like the Governor to give attention to the question of the detainees. I am delighted to hear that the military tribunals and hangings will cease, but there is still the question of the conservative estimate of 18,000 detainees. Perhaps the Government or the Governor can pay attention to that. I appeal to the Patriotic Front to release any people who are at present unwillingly within its custody and care. Perhaps at some stage the Government, or the Governor, will make a statement on the question of people who were deported or who are persona non grata in Rhodesia and say whether those who have not been able to return to Salisbury from outside the country in the recent past will be able to do so if they are not openly or understandably recognised as subversive.
The next points that I wish to make are on education and hospitals. Many schools, hospitals and clinics have had to close during the past few years. One of

the confidence-building measures that can be taken during the next two months is to reopen them. It is estimated that 400,000 children have lost their education in the past few years. It would be confidence-building to them and to their parents if they could get back to school and start receiving the education that will be necessary for an independent Zimbabwe.
As a final point, I ask the Governor to ensure that the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation starts using the world service of the BBC for its international news instead of using the South African news service. It is not that I have anything in particular against South African broadcasting, but, having fought to preserve the external and world services of the BBC, I think that that would be regarded as impartial both inside and outside Rhodesia.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I want to follow immediately the last point made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley)—a point with which I agree. All of us tonight would wish to speed Lord Soames on his way with our fervent good wishes for his success and perhaps not quibble too much about the day or two days too early or too late that he might have gone. If he succeeds, no one will reflect whether he might have waited another day or two days and, if he fails, whether any amount of delay might have altered that course. We must all hope that he succeeds.
The point that I wish to make concerns the executive powers of Lord Soames under article 5 of the statutory instrument with regard to the control of the public services in Rhodesia. We are told by the Lord Privy Seal that the Governor will issue ordinances consequent upon this statutory instrument. Those ordinances will not come before the House, so this is our only opportunity to raise points which we have attempted to bring up at Question Time and on other occasions recently.
I wish to press the Lord Privy Seal on a matter that I raised with him at Question Time recently and which has been touched on by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, namely, the control of the Rhodesian broadcasting services in the run-up to the independence election.
The public services taken over by Lord Soames in his capacity as Governor fall into two distinct functions: some purely administrative, and others that are in a sense mediatory. The administrative functions go on as before. There may be a tug of loyalties and problems, but most public servants in Rhodesia will continue in their jobs. That goes for policemen, too. They will be doing what they were doing before. But for those who are in charge of the information services there is a different and more complex problem. That problem arises from the massive change in function that they must now undergo.
Those of us who have been subject, as most hon. Members have over the years, to Rhodesian propaganda emanating from Salisbury know the nature and style of that material. They have been used to being—and so have the Rhodesian broadcasting services—a mouthpiece for the Smith Government and then for the internal settlement. They are now being asked to provide an even-handed service between their former Government—no longer their Government—and an organisation that for many years they have been accustomed to describe as, and no doubt believed to be, bloodthirsty terrorists.
In the circumstances, it seems extremely unlikely that the Rhodesian broadcasting services, left to themselves, could, even if the best will in the world obtained, which I doubt, provide the kind of services necessary to get over in this deeply divided country anything like a proper balance of views and opinions. I am thinking much more of radio and of the vernacular services in the Shona and Matabele languages than of the comparatively few people who watch television or listen to English language relays. I hope that, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said, the service provided externally to Rhodesia will be not the South African but the BBC service. The BBC's overseas services were formerly relayed through Francis town to Rhodesia, so it should be technically possible, before the election, to have the overseas services relayed there again.
The Lord Privy Seal, in answer to me in the House recently, said that the House could rest assured that there would be fair coverage provided by the Rhodesian

broadcasting services. However, he did not say how, and there have been extensive press reports that the Government have turned down proposals to send BBC or other experts from Britain to oversee the broadcasting services during the election period.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should think again on this matter Mr. Garfield Todd and others in Rhodesia have made strong representations about the nature of the broadcasting services which the Rhodesians enjoy—if that is the right word—at the moment, and the need to change them. Although Mr. Todd used to be the subject of some derision on the Conservative Benches, he has been clearly vindicated by events.
Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether it is envisaged that Lord Soames' entourage will include people who will take over the administration of the Rhodesian broadcasting and information services? Unless that happens I do not believe that there can be anything like proper provision of even-handed coverage, particularly in the vernacular languages, for the people of Rhodesia. They will need that in the run-up to the election bearing in mind what is being asked of both sides who will be fighting it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Earlier today we were told that an official from the Central Office of Information would be going out. Does the hon. Member agree that we want to hear that there has been a request from the Governor or from the Central Office of Information official that BBC personnel should be seconded to provide in Rhodesia the same kind of balance as we have here?

Mr. Whitehead: That is precisely the point. I am talking both of technical personnel and reporters, those who will keep the ring in the broadcast service. It will include interviews with the leaders of the various parties. It is highly unlikely that this will be anything like a British election. I have seen some naive documents suggesting that election round-up programmes should be introduced with "It is your line to Robert Mugabe" as the chief enticement to the housewives of Salisbury. That is not the kind of programmes that we are talking about. I am referring to the opportunity being provided for all the various factions in the election to put their points of view, and for


that to be mediated fairly by the professional broadcasters.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to tell us that experts from this country, or from elsewhere in the Commonwealth, will go out, at the Government's request, to provide that service.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to make a general comment about the order and the Lord Privy Seal's method of presenting it. He should speak not of the power of the Governor but of his authority. The two things must not be confused. The Governor has the authority. Whether he has the power we have to wait and see.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) raised the issue of the return of refugees from outside the country. It is important that they should be able to return at the earliest possible stage. I have not had a figure confirmed, but there may be as many as 250,000 voters outside Rhodesia. If that is so, it could make a substantial difference to the result of the election.
I hope that they will be able to return and that it will be possible for the protected villages to be disbanded so that people can go about their business in as normal a way as possible. It would be too much to expect that within a matter of days a country that has been strife-torn for seven years can suddenly return to normality. It will be a very long time before the country does return to normality—probably it will be long after the election. The process of conciliation and reconciliation will take some time to become fully effective. I hope that it will begin as quickly as possible.
The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about the way in which the media will deal with events should be taken very seriously. There is certainly evidence in this country that our reporting of events in Rhodesia leaves a lot to be desired. I have written today to ITN on the basis of a complaint raised with me about ITN's coverage from Salisbury of the announcement that a ceasefire had been agreed in principle. The ITN reporter went out on to the streets of Salisbury and purported to seek the views of the people of Rhodesia on the outcome of the

ceasefire. It is incredible that he sought the views only of white people, who are outnumbered by seven to one.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Twenty-seven to one.

Mr. Hughes: It is late, but I am always glad to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I am making. It is incredible that not one black person on the streets of Salisbury was asked to express a view on the ceasefire. If that kind of biased reporting is transmitted to this country, how can we expect that balanced reporting and a balance of information will be made available within Rhodesia in the period leading up to the elections? I hope that every possible step will be taken to remedy that situation.
I hope that the Governor will take on board that an attempt to get free and fair elections is not simply a question of holding the ring between opposing forces in terms of military forces. It is not a matter of sitting back and passively waiting to see whether any technical breaches of the constitutional arrangements or irregularities in procedure occur. There are serious problems, some of which have been mentioned, such as the difficulty of obtaining committee rooms. If it is accepted that communications are important, it should be remembered that telephones are a matter of our electoral life that we take for granted.
If we explain to the Post Office that we have a committee room in a particular street, it is only a matter of hours before a telephone is installed. Do we imagine that if the Patriotic Front says that it wants a telephone in a remote area those in charge of installing telephones in Rhodesia will go out of their way to see that such a request is met quickly? If this election is to be run fairly, the Governor must make sure that communications are provided. I believe I am correct in saying that the Government have agreed to make radio sets available to the Patriotic Front in order to communicate orders about the ceasefire. Perhaps the provision of telephones should be considered in a similar way.
Article 6 deals with the prerogative of mercy. I am glad to hear that the martial law courts have been suspended. That is the kind of action for which we have been looking to get things moving. I am also


glad to hear that hangings are to cease. May we assume that the prerogative of mercy will be exercised by the Governor for those who have been sentenced by these courts in the past and that they will be released from whatever the circumstances in which they have been imprisoned?

Sir Ian Gilmour: Sir Ian Gilmour indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: Those are the kinds at matters that justify sending the Governor in advance. Had we been told in advance that that was the sort of action that was likely to be taken, some of our fears might have been taken care of earlier.
I wish to raise one specific point about which I have spoken privately to the Lord Privy Seal and about which I have now written to him. A constituent of mine in Salisbury prison was sentenced for making available, through his banking job, information about how the Rhodesians were able to keep finance flowing throughout the world. I do not know whether he would be included among those for release under the terms of the amnesty provisions in the Southern Rhodesia Act.
An added complication is that he was also charged with moving money illegally from the country, which I understand is a criminal, and not a political, offence. He may therefore not appear as a political prisoner, but the Governor could exercise the prerogative of mercy for my constituent who has served six years of a 15-year sentence. We hope that he can be released and returned safely to his family.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I owe it to the House, even at this late hour, to respond briefly to one or two matters raised by hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) mentioned Rhodesian refugees in Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana. The Governor will do his utmost, as quickly as possible, to enable those who wish to return to vote to be able to do so and, in the longer term, to be able to settle in Zimbabwe. He will have at his disposal international agencies and United Nations bodies to assist him in that process.
I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). I am sure that the Governor will note many of my hon. Friend's suggestions. My hon. Friend referred to detainees, and another advantage of the presence of the Governor is that he will undertake an immediate review—though I hope that he will get a good night's sleep after his overnight flight—of the cases of all detained persons in Rhodesia, with the object of securing freedom of those whose release would not constitute a threat to public safety and order. Anyone detained on political grounds will be released. That applies to both sides. The Governor has a right to ask for a list of those detained by the Patriotic Front in Mozambique or anywhere else and to review their position.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and a number of other hon. Members referred to the media. I responded to that matter on Second Reading, and I reiterate that it is the task of the Governor, supported by the Election Commissioner, whose task is to secure free and fair elections, to ensure that all the political parties have free, equal and proper access to the media, including the broadcasting authorities.
I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North about the advice available to the Governor and the Election Commissioner to ensure that that access is granted. The Governor has at his disposal an adviser on these matters. They flew out together.
We must not tie the hands of the Governor, but if he feels that it is necessary to seek further advice from this country in order to ensure that the criteria on access to the media can be satisfied, it will be up to him to do so. However, we must give him a little time to settle in and discuss the matter with the Election Commissioner and other authorities.
I thank the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) for his remarks about the order and the appointment of the Governor. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the dangers, which we all acknowledge. For the reasons that have been deployed, we still feel strongly that the arrival of the Governor today will assist in the process of bringing about a speedy resumption of legality.


the holding of free and fair elections and the bringing about of peace. We appreciate the good wishes that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Governor, and I am sure that the Governor will appreciate them even more on his first evening in Rhodesia.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December, be approved.

GLASSHOUSE INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Mr. Bob Dunn: I am glad, at long last, to leave Rhodesia and turn to the horticulture problems of North-West Kent. I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems of glasshouse producers.
First, I record my thanks to Mr. Lionel Mills, Mr. Michael Wallis, Mr. Vic Ross and Mr. Richard Holdaway, all of whom are members of the North-West Kent producers branch of the National Farmers Union. Their good-natured, intelligent and persistent lobby since 3 May has led me to take great note of their continents and complaints, and, thus convinced, I have sought to raise the issue on the Adjournment.
North-West Kent has traditional associations with glasshouse produce. That is partly because of the availability of land in the early part of the century, but mainly because of its nearness to the great London markets. In the early 1950s about 60 glasshouse producing units existed. It is unfortunate that only 25 now exist. Those no longer in existence have been converted to other agricultural use or lie derelict. In some instances there has been housing estate development. In former years about 1,000 people were employed in North-West Kent in glasshouse production. There are now barely 300 so employed.
Although the industry is in a reduced state, it is efficient and productive. For how long can that continue? With a lack

of financial investment, with fierce, unfair competition from the Dutch, and with long-term energy problems, what sort of future has my local horticulture industry? The average age of members in the Dart-ford area is now approaching 50 years. No new glasshouse units have been opened for some time. Young growers are deterred from entering because of high capital costs and low returns. A further complication exists because of the supply and demand nature of the market within which the industry operates.
The first problem to which I refer is that of energy, which amounts to about 40 per cent. of annual production costs. Many growers are currently using oil. In view of the uncertainty of the price stability of that resource, they would rather convert to gas. National Farmers Union members have approached the gas board to obtain conversion but have been deterred either by the cost of conversion or by the unavailability of supply. Action is required by the Government to force the gas board to give glasshouse producers priority and to make increased grant aid available to enable the conversion of oil-fired units to gas or coal to be carried out.
Energy savings of at least 10 per cent. can be achieved partly by conversion to gas and partly by the installation of thermal screens. The NFU has called for an increase in aid available under the horticulture capital grants scheme, the farm and horticulture development scheme and the Department of Energy's conservation scheme, from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. of total expenditure for installation of thermal screens.
The second problem relates to unfair competition from within the EEC, and mainly from the Dutch. Comparable price data based on energy prices obtaining on 1 November in Holland, Germany and the United Kingdom show the Dutch to have an enormous advantage over the other two countries. For example, for heavy oil, the United Kingdom and Germany pay 7·7p and 7·5p per litre respectively. For light oil, the United Kingdom and Germany pay lop and 12p to 15p per litre respectively. For gas—the Dutch growers use only gas—the Dutch pay 17·5 centa per cubic metre. That converts to only 4·345p per litre of oil. Germany uses oil for 90 per cent. of its production and believes


that her growers pay 200 per cent. more than the Dutch.
The NFU has calculated that the price difference given to the Dutch has an advantage for the Dutch tomato producer of £6,000–£10,000 per acre over his United Kingdom counterpart. With the knowledge of the Dutch Government, the Dutch gas company operates a two-tier gas price system. That system gives horticultural units a price that is 31 per cent. cheaper than that given to domestic and other industrial users. The Dutch link their gas prices to the least expensive grade of oil. The reverse is true in the United Kingdom.
Other benefits are given to the Dutch in the form of loans at low fixed rates of interest and transport savings. That means that the Dutch are able to dump tremendous quantities of horticultural produce in the United Kingdom, to the detriment of my local growers.
Great cost is incurred in renovating old plant. Many growers work with wooden frames that warp with time and become less effective. The high capital cost of replacement, in addition to the low-profit market, has caused many people to live off the fat. That fat no longer exists, and no renovation is taking place. High interest rates act as a disincentive to renovation. However, our counterparts in the EEC receive low fixed-rate loans or other grants for double glazing in excess of 50 per cent.
Finally, I refer to the problems associated with plant inspectors. I understand that there is an EEC harmonisation of plant health directive that is likely to take effect shortly. Local growers complain that, due to the absence of Kent plant inspectors, who are often seconded to other parts of the country, irregular attention is paid to imports from abroad. However, exports from the United Kingdom to Holland and Germany are rigorously tested and rejected for the slightest defect. The reverse occurs in the United Kingdom. The problems facing the industry are enormous and the prospect of many people reducing their output, to the detriment of the British housewife, must be faced. I shall be grateful if the Minister will answer in particular those questions relating to energy and to unfair competition.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Dunn) for raising a number or important issues for the glasshouse industry. I congratulate him on putting these problems so succinctly on what I believe is his first Adjournment debate. I am sure that he will accept that the problems that he has mentioned are not confined to growers in North-West Kent but serve as an example of the present concerns felt by the whole glasshouse industry.
The major disquiet that my hon. Friend has raised is about the availability and the cost of energy, especially oil, which is the fuel most frequently used for glasshouse heating. That concern is fully understandable, since the cost of heating can be as much as one-third of the growers' production cost.
While my hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulty of making any long-term forecast about the availability or price of oil—particularly at the moment—as far Sea oil is priced at world levels. Contract prices for gas, where it is used, are fixed in individual negotiations between the customer and the gas board. It has been as can be foreseen the oil supply situation for the winter months should be satisfactory. In times of shortage, voluntary arrangements for distribution are the best as long as conditions allow.
Similarly, and I fully understand that the price of oil to horticulturists has gone up by about 50 per cent. in the past year, I must stress that the Government do not determine the price of oil or gas. North suggested that we should give a subsidy, such as the one paid in 1974, to horticulturists to help them adapt to this year's price rises. But the current circumstances arc quite different from 1974, when there was an unexpected threefold increase in oil prices, which would have put many growers out of business had they not been given time to adapt to such a large increase in their costs.
It is not in the long-term interest of growers to shield them from rising oil prices. They need to adapt if they are to survive in the long run. We do, however, give them help in other ways. Horticulturists receive full rebate of excise


duty on oil for glasshouse heating and soil sterilisation, and their supplies are zero rated for VAT. My Department is helping all the time through ADAS advice to growers to help improve production methods, and grants are available for energy-saving equipment. This includes conversion from oil to other fuels where this is technically feasible and commercially viable.
I note what my hon. Friend said about the supply of gas, but it is a well-understood problem where there have been difficulties in the supply and price of oil. Gas has been a relatively cheaply priced fuel, and many users of fuel, both domestic and industrial, have turned to the gas industry for supplies. But that industry has not been able to provide them, and horticulture is no different in that respect. It is certainly not an area in which the Government could, or in my view should, intervene.
Investment by growers in energy-saving measures such as the installation of thermal screens or improvements in heating systems, including conversion from oil to some other fuel, should be worthwhile investments in themselves. Current rates of grant ranging from 15 to 25 per cent. under the various schemes are not an inadequate contribution to such capital investment. We are also carrying out a considerable amount of research and development on energy-saving techniques, including thermal screens, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The whole question of the long-term future of energy for glasshouses is being studied jointly by officials of my Department and the NFU.
While I understand my hon. Friend's concern about high capital costs of both glasshouses and associated equipment at the present time, I am certain that he will be sympathetic to the view that this indusry is very open to competition, and he will be pleased to learn that there are those who make substantial profits as well as those at the other end of the scale. It may just be that the latter number amongst my hon. Friend's constituents. I cannot support the view that the Government should intervene in the industry beyond the present level. This is, of course, in line with our party political philosophy.
However, I share my hon. Friend's concern and I am most sympathetic to the plea that the industry should be able

to operate in conditions of fair competition. Glasshouse producers have undoubtedly been facing stiffer competition from imports since we joined the EEC, and in particular since the end of transition when we became fully exposed to free trade between ourselves and other member States. We are frequently being told—and my hon. Friend has said so in as many words tonight—that the glasshouse industry is not afraid of competition as long as it is fair. I applaud that sentiment. It is just what I would expect to hear from an enterprising and forward-looking industry, which I believe the glasshouse sector to be.
However, we have to be on our guard against labelling all competition as "unfair". That would be a dangerous frame of mind to allow ourselves to get into. It cannot be said, as a general proposition, that what is unequal is unfair. We have to accept that natural advantages and disadvantages—soil and climate, for example—are not evenly distributed. Similarly—within certain limits which I will come to in a moment—there may be legitimate reasons why the differing policies of national Governments result in variations in the business environment; for instance, in the costs of labour, machinery, haulage, fertilisers and other inputs.
It would be as impossible—and improper—to try to equalise all these factors as it would be to compensate a grower for a badly sited holding. In general, growers have to work within the circumstances in which they find themselves, and it is precisely because the exercise of management skill and decision-making is a major determinant of the ultimate success or failure of the enterprise that this branch of agriculture has always attracted the talented entrepreneur.
Where I agree with my hon. Friend is on the importance of upholding the rules of fair competition under the Treaty of Rome. It has been represented to us that the rules are being breached and that there is unfairness of competition. We have thoroughly investigated the facts through our agricultural attaches, and we find that the allegations are unfounded.
Let us look at the details. It has been claimed that it is unfair for Dutch growers to buy gas for heating their glasshouses at a lower price than our growers pay for


their fuel, which is mainly oil. But the Dutch gas is onshore and near to the greenhouses—and I acknowledge that Dutch growers buy it cheaply. But that in itself is not necessarily unfair. There is no evidence that the gas price is below the cost of production or that Government subsidies are involved. It would be a very different matter if that were the case, and given any real evidence we would immediately act on it. I have said this in the House before, and I hope that my hon. Friend will note that promise. If there is evidence available, the Government will act upon it.
Then again, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Dutch investment law—the Dutch WIR scheme—is unfair as compared with our system of support for the glasshouse industry. The WIR scheme is complex and very different from our traditional system. It is not easy, therefore, to make precise comparisons, particularly since the position of individual growers can vary widely. But the facts show that, broadly, the tax provisions that we make, such as the capital allowances, plus our system of capital grants, plus the sums spent on research and development—where horticulture, incidentally, is treated most generously—will stand comparison in total benefit to the horticulture investor.
The EEC Commission has studied the Dutch WIR system. Indeed, it was modified at the Commission's request. The Commission concluded that it was not incompatible with Community rules and not, therefore, unfair.
It is right to be watchful, but for action to be taken on grounds of unfairness under the Treaty we need to prove one or the other of two things: either that the Government of another member State are giving an illegal national subsidy or that the sellers are operating restrictive agreements or practices which affect trade or distort competition. On investigation, the allegations put to us so far have met those tests and cannot, therefore, be labelled unfair.
I turn to the specific question of plant health which my hon. Friend raised. I fully realise that, as my hon. Friend said, there are fears in the industry that the implementation of the EEC frontier directive will weaken our import controls and increase the risk of bringing in plant pests and diseases. This is not so.

The original draft directive has been very much modified to protect the special plant health situation of the United Kingdom and contains all the safeguards essential to us.
Where prohibitions on imports are to be removed, alternative restrictions relating, for example, to areas of production and to cleaning and packing will be imposed. These will, as has always been the case, be controlled by the plant health service of the exporting member State. We have had experience of working with these services and in general have a great respect for their expertise and efficiency in meeting our requirements. We are sure that they will be no less effective in seeing that the requirements of the directive are carried out.
It will, however, be important, as it has always been, to monitor imports, partly to see that agreed procedures are being operated but also to watch for unforeseen hazards. My inspectors will be looking particularly at those areas where the directive has altered existing arrangements, and where necessary we shall, as we have always done, destroy or reject unhealthy material. To cope with this additional work, the size of the inspectorate has been increased by 10 per cent.
The philosophy of the Government is to encourage enterprise, which horticulture has in no small measure. This extends beyond the glasshouse sector. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of orchard fruit production in his constituency. This is another sector in which the pace of competition is quickening and where I see encouraging signs that growers are prepared to adapt their production and marketing methods to meet the challenge. This is what all farmers and growers should be doing, as, indeed, many of them are.
Fresh fruit and vegetables of top quality are in great demand in this country, and there is every evidence that our consumers are ready to pay the necessary price for the best produce. Who will supply what the United Kingdom market requires? Why should it not be our own growers, who themselves also have several natural advantages, including that of proximity to market? Where the foreign competition can be shown to be unfair in terms of the Rome Treaty—and not merelyunequal—then, as I have already


said, the Government will certainly be prepared to take vigorous action to redress any imbalance.
My hon. Friend will accept that we have chalked up several successes in this direction already. Where there are technological problems or opportunities for technological advances—such as within the area of plant health and in the field of research and development, to both of which I have already referred—here, too, the Government will continue to help and encourage the industry and ensure that it receives its due share of support.
But in matters of business enterprise, and in facing the challenge of imports in an era of free trading, the Government look to the whole horticulture industry—of which the glasshouse sector is an important part—to live up to its past reputation, to stand on its own feet, and to reap the future rewards that are there to be earned by skilled and resolute growers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past One o'clock.